Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Hospital Services (Kent)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue which is of the utmost importance to my constituents living in Herne Bay, Margate and the Thanet and Herne villages. It is important to the wider community of east Kent and throughout the county, the south-east and the country.
I know that colleagues on both sides of the Chamber wish to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. If I am not interrupted too often, I hope to be as generous as possible with the time that you have afforded me and to confine my remarks to the minimum necessary.
The health authorities in Kent face painful decisions. Despite a painstaking and collaborative process by the national health service family, the choices have still set medical staff against medical staff, brother against brother, and caused political strife. The position has not been helped by some hysterical and irresponsible campaigning.
Mr. Richard Collins, speaking as director of surgery at Kent and Canterbury hospital, said that these were "complex issues" and that the debate was not assisted by the intervention of
vested interests, including doctors and shroud wavers.
He was right. These are complex issues and they require careful and measured consideration, not the abuse of position and knowledge by people who, for their own interests, rather than the interests of public health, in some cases deliberately seek to mislead.
I want to use the next 20 minutes or so to offer what I hope will be a constructive contribution to a consultation that will last for nearly three months before a document for final decision thuds on to the desk of the Secretary of State for Health. I do not envy his task. Like any Health Minister—of any Government or any party—he has to work within a climate of change, and I do not believe that this is or should be a party political issue.
We must all recognise that funding is not unlimited, that the pattern of work and training for medical staff is changing and that advances in medical science, often dependent on fiercely expensive equipment and drugs, make many life-saving procedures possible. That, in turn, raises public expectation, demand and faith in the medical professions to almost intolerable levels. Thirty years ago, a cataract operation or a hip or knee replacement was a major procedure and a rarity; now, new eyes, hips or knees are the order of the day.
Junior doctors' training years and working hours have been reduced. A young hospital doctor who used to work more than 100 hours a week now works 56, and that figure is destined to decrease further. General practitioners who used to work day and night after day and night, now may not carry out night calls at all and work a much shorter week. However, the requirements of the royal colleges demand that, before they are let loose on the public, young doctors must be exposed to a given number of patients in a given number of specialties and under the right conditions. That is right. No one here would like even an appendectomy to be carried out by someone who said, "Oh, this is interesting—I have never seen one of these before."
As well as the importance of exposure to procedures during training, evidence clearly shows that, when the experienced consultant and his or her team carry out many of the same procedures, the outcome for patients—the real measure of the quality of the service—is better than when the same team cares for a wider range of patients. That is sub-specialisation. Therefore, if medical students and trainee doctors are to see enough patients in a shorter time, it is axiomatic that throughput must be greater and the hospital larger. To allow consultants to sub-specialise, there must be more of them, working in larger teams and caring for a larger population. I believe that it is that demand, rather than simply or even a cash shortage, that is causing many of the tensions that we now feel.
There are well over 30 24-hour accident and emergency units in the south-east region. I am told that it is likely that that number will have to be reduced by perhaps 10, with a consequent transfer of some other services. Throughout Kent, throughout the south-east and throughout the country, because no one is immune from the process, that will mean a great deal of heart-searching and not inconsiderable anger. We are experiencing that in east Kent, as I know only too well; we shall not be alone.
West Kent currently has hospitals in Dartford, Medway, Maidstone, Tunbridge Wells and Pembury, and the West Kent health authority told me:
We recognised that improvements in clinical capability, professional opinions about safety and training, combined with financial realism and the need to meet health needs other than acute ones, all lead towards some traditional hospital services being reorganised to serve larger populations. We accept that in-patients will increasingly be seen at locations specialising in a particular service; but matched by better local access to day-case surgery and out-patient clinics.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend has told me that she will have to serve on a Committee later this morning and will be unable to make a speech in this debate. I am pleased to give way to her.

Miss Widdecombe: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and particularly for taking on board my reasons. Maidstone is a centre of excellence in its oncology services. As we are told that the East Kent health authority now plans that there shall not be cancer services at Canterbury, it is inevitable that those will be exported mainly to Maidstone. Does my hon. Friend share


my view that it is necessary that the West Kent authority is able to respond to that by expanding the service at Maidstone and not by expanding the queue?

Mr. Gale: I believe that it is necessary that West Kent is able to respond positively. Later, I shall deal in a little detail with the future of oncology services in east Kent.
In its concluding remarks to me, the West Kent health authority—in perhaps the most important sentence of all—said:
We do not believe that the status quo is tenable for both professional/clinical and financial reasons.
The status quo is also not tenable in east Kent, where we face the prospect of redistributing the work currently performed by three district hospitals—Ashford, Thanet and Canterbury—to create two main 24-hour accident and emergency hospitals, backing up perhaps a city hospital in Canterbury, the Buckland hospital and a chain of, I hope enhanced, local hospitals, including Faversham, the Whitstable and Tankerton, the Queen Victoria hospital, Herne Bay, the Victoria hospital, Deal, and the Royal Victoria hospital, serving Hythe and Folkestone.
It is perhaps appropriate that I am initiating this debate, for my constituency straddles population centres that use two of the three main hospitals: the Kent and Canterbury, on the Ashford side of the city of Canterbury, and the newly built Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Margate.
I have been involved in the development of hospital health care in east Kent—through the preservation of the Queen Victoria hospital, Herne Bay, the closure of the Royal Seabathing hospital in Westbrook and the building of the new Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Margate—for the whole of my 15 years as a Member of Parliament.
There are those who say that the debate on health services in Kent has been going on for only a matter of months. It has not; it has been going on for years. Under the old Canterbury and Thanet health authority, Conservative Members fought our own Government for increased funding under the resource allocation working party formula. Both Thanet and Canterbury hospitals—the former more than the latter—were starved of cash while inner London took a disproportionate share of the available funds.
We have watched the roads develop with the population around the coastal strip, and we have worked to ensure that developments in health care matched the shift in gravity of the population away from the centre to the coast, and the social need and deprivation in, particularly, Thanet. It was the recognition of that need which led the health authority and the previous Government to fund development of the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Thanet.
More recently—for the best part of three years—acute service working parties, with strong medical representation from all the major hospitals in the area, have been wrestling with the disposition of neonatal, paediatric, haematology, pathology, renal, oncology, ophthalmology, orthopaedic, cardiac and other services.
Since the spring of last year—not July or August, as some suggest—minds have been focused on the "Future of Hospital Services in East Kent" document. It saddens

me enormously that some of the medical staff who took part in that process, who did not raise any public or even on-the-record private concerns, and who pressed, then and since, for concentrating services on a single site are now, in the light of the debate that has been generated, seeking to present the process as flawed and to criticise the health authority officials who managed the process.
I pay tribute to the regional chairman, Sir William Wells, to the chairman and the chief executive of the East Kent health authority, Jo Hawkes and Mark Outhwaite, and to their team for the work that they put into the discussion document published on 2 February, and their continuing work—in the face of fierce criticism and not a little personal and unwarranted abuse—in the consultation and decision-making process. I do not find it attractive that there are those who are seeking to have the document withdrawn on the basis of, at worst, some very minor or, in a couple of cases, typographical errors.
A five-option shortlist was produced. On 4 November last year, the options—a green-field site hospital; a single hospital based on the existing Kent and Canterbury hospital; and combinations of Thanet and Canterbury, Canterbury and Ashford, or Ashford and Thanet—were put to a meeting of all concerned at the Kent county cricket club, which included the working party, again including medical staff from all three major hospitals involved, and general practitioners' representatives.
Laurie McMahon, of the widely respected and independent Office of Public Management—an organisation specialising in NHS matters—asked all those present whether, in addition to the five options on the table, there were any other realistic and practical alternatives that should be considered. Significantly, no voice was raised to suggest that the work that was done was anything but thorough.
On the day before that meeting, the acute futures group held an unofficial meeting—at the request of Dr. Robin Withrington, clinical director of the Kent and Canterbury hospital—to discuss a submission based on the single-site option. A note prepared by the secretary of the group says that the submission was withdrawn because the health authority was to consider that option further, regardless. Subsequently, the consultants Messrs. Davis, Langdon and Everest prepared a report stating that the single-site option should be ruled out, because it would take too long to deliver and implement, would be inordinately costly and, most important, would cause the biggest loss of public accessibility.
It has again been suggested that specialist doctors at Canterbury were not consulted. The facts are that each trust provided representatives to the project, and each trust undertook to establish its own internal briefing mechanisms to ensure that other staff were involved and had the opportunity to contribute through their representatives. That seems to have worked at the Ashford Hospital NHS trust, Canterbury and Thanet Community Healthcare NHS trust and Thanet Healthcare NHS trust, and the written evidence provided by the heads of the specialties—such as the neonatal intensive care unit and renal unit—was provided direct to the health authority, along with other options from external experts.
If Canterbury specialists feel that they were not properly consulted, that would appear to be the fault of their medical director, who was a participant in the project.
At a meeting at Dover town hall before a wider audience, the authority presented its preliminary findings and presented two options for main hospitals: Thanet and Ashford, or Ashford and Canterbury. On 11 December, a preference for the Thanet-Ashford option was expressed by the East Kent health authority. The authority based that preference and those options on the available evidence. Again significantly, while much heat has been generated, no light has been shed by those complaining on what the Office of Public Management described as a "realistic and practical alternative".
There are those campaigning—I think quite dishonestly—for a solution of three acute hospitals, based on the maintenance of all three 24-hour accident and emergency units. On the available evidence, that is a cruel deceit and not a realistic proposition because of the required training and—we must be brutally honest—the financial constraints faced by any Government.
What is the solution? On the answer depends a likely pattern that will develop throughout Kent, the wider south-east area and, indeed, the country. Many of my constituents living in Herne Bay—many of them personal friends—have been angered by threats of so-called "cuts" or the "transfer of services" to locations that they regard as remote or inaccessible. They have also been frightened by wild talk of the "closure" of the Kent and Canterbury hospital, which, of course, is not threatened with closure at all. Indeed, only two days ago, a young journalist covering the story asked me whether I was not surprised that
people would be upset because their hospital was going to be closed".
It would have been easy, and politically much more comfortable, for me to back the three acute hospital option and to leave the burden of decision on the "wicked" health authority. It would also in my view have been as profoundly dishonest as the behaviour of the medics and local politicians currently peddling that view, because I believe that, while there is much room for manoeuvre in the discussion document, the health authority has got the framework broadly right in its expressed preference.
Geographically and demographically—in terms of population density and social need—the two prime medical centres in east Kent should be in Ashford and Thanet. Once that has been recognised, it becomes abundantly clear that attention must be given to public transport within east Kent; but that will be true whatever the outcome of the review.
I am very aware that bus services between Herne Bay and the Queen Elizabeth hospital, for example, leave a great deal to be desired, as does the bus service from Herne Bay, via the centre of Canterbury and with a change, to the Kent and Canterbury hospital. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has expressed to me his concern about services from, for example, the Elham valley to Ashford that will be needed by his constituents. Other routes will also need attention.
That is why the health authority is already working on a transport plan to meet patient and visitor needs, and why I have already had preliminary discussions with the county council to consider possible changes better to serve all our hospitals.
However, that does not gainsay the fact that the overwhelming majority of callers at hospitals, whether as patients or visitors, travel by car. The travel-time analysis

on which the preferred option has been based is calculated not on raw population figures or "I can get from A to B faster" research, but on actual hospital activity—the use of real services by real patients. It demonstrates a clear advantage for the Thanet option, especially in the sensitive area of paediatrics.
The second, or Canterbury-Ashford, option put forward by the health authority for consideration would place two 24-hour accident and emergency centres within 14 miles of each other, while denuding the largest centre of population—Thanet—20 miles away of its acute services. However, that demographic reality should not be allowed to preclude the building of a brand new city hospital in Canterbury, which I whole-heartedly support and have promoted. Such a hospital would, of course, house the more than 80 per cent. of existing services that, even under the health authority's current proposals, will remain in Canterbury—hardly the "closure" that some have sought to portray in the local press and on public platforms.
I support the creation of a single east Kent health trust to manage the services and—here I part company with the health authority—the preservation and development of the services at all the local hospitals that I named earlier. Moreover, I believe that, while it is indubitably true that, if these proposals are adopted, some patients will have to travel further for some treatment by some specialists, as some already travel to Maidstone, to the Medway towns and to London, it is also true that, for many purposes—through a much wider choice of consultant outreach clinics and the development of day surgery—many of my constituents in Herne Bay will not have to leave the town at all. Why should they not be seen and treated in our own hospital, the Queen Victoria, closer to home? Following major procedures in another hospital, why should they not be able to recuperate in the Queen Vic, with friends and family close at hand?
I hope that Herne Bay's GPs will soon take advantage of the offer made to them by Dr. Alan Jones, the accident and emergency consultant at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital, who is pioneering telemedicine in the area. As a result of modern technology, patients at Deal will soon be treated with advice from the consultants in Thanet, and the same opportunity is being offered to Heme Bay. I am sure that our excellent and far-sighted local GPs will not wish to deny my constituents that service.
There is a tremendous role for our local hospitals to play. I pay tribute to the League of Friends and all those who have worked so hard to provide beautiful new out-patient and other facilities at the Queen Victoria hospital. Similar organisations have no doubt achieved equivalent improvements at the other smaller hospitals, too.
I know of no reason—again, I question the health authority's view—why the Canterbury arm of the Maidstone- Canterbury cancer centre, which provides excellent non-surgical oncology services, as well as some of the specialist surgery carried out at other cancer units in, for example, the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Thanet, should not be transferred to a new city hospital.
Consultants working in Canterbury have sought to suggest that non-surgical oncology is not possible without the back-up services that go with a 24-hour accident and emergency unit. Try as I may, starting with Professor Calman's office, working through Dr. Graham


Winyard's office to the NHS executive and the regional cancer co-ordinator, I can find no one who is prepared to say that that is so.
I shall be told that the Royal Marsden, with its twin sites at Sutton and on the Fulham road, the Christie in Manchester and the proposed Bart's development, none of which has 24-hour accident and emergency units, are special cases. But are the Cookridge near Leeds, which is a stand-alone hospital in the countryside, or the Clatterbridge—neither of which has 24-hour A and E units, but both of which carry out non-surgical oncology—special cases as well? If so, it is perfectly possible—I am sure that the consultants will recognise this—to move the more modern linear accelerator from Canterbury to Thanet where there will be services that the consultants claim are required. My personal preference, however, would be for that well-established unit to remain as part of the new city hospital in Canterbury.
There is at present no definitive view about what services are essential, rather than desirable, to support a non-surgical oncology unit as part of a full Calman-Hine cancer centre. That being so, I can only repeat that it would be a sad irony if those taking an intransigent all-or-nothing approach to the issue were to paint themselves into a corner from which we cannot extricate them. They and, more important, the community that they wish to serve have a great deal to lose by that approach.
It is also time that we challenged the fact that Kent has no teaching hospital. It must surely make sense to seize this opportunity, for it can be either an opportunity or a threat, to establish, based on the university of Kent—I am sure that the vice-chancellor, Robin Sibson, would be the first to remind us that it is the university of Kent, not the university of Canterbury—a medical school founded on the East Kent health authority proposals and using the specialties, facilities and the undoubted expertise available at all our hospitals as the practical training ground.
Let me make it clear that I am not advocating a back-door route to a single-site centre at Canterbury; nor will I support the siphoning off of SIFTR money—the service increment for teaching and research—for medical students to one single hospital. There is a case for a medical school in Kent, based on and using the best of all the facilities in all the hospitals that we have on offer. In that context, it should perhaps be placed on record that, for example, the QEQM hospital has a critical care floor with a specialist complex of four operating theatres, an intensive care unit, a cardiac unit and a high-dependence unit all in close proximity, on the same floor and managed as a single unit. I think I am right in saying that the only other such unit in Britain is at Addenbrooke's in Cambridge.
The QEQM looks forward to a GP service alongside the new A and E department, with extended waiting space and a triage centre at the core that will allow GPs to keep more patients out of hospital and will free accident and emergency beds to handle the real emergencies. That is, of course, in line with the implementation of the White Paper's recommendations for medicine based on primary care groups.
The hospital offers good facilities, a good training opportunity for doctors without excessive hours, and access to sub-specialisation—the career path of tomorrow. It is right that these opportunities, and those at our other

hospitals, should be made available to tomorrow's doctors—and they can be made available within the health authority framework.
It would be good to be able to end there. However, a situation is developing that has the potential to place at risk not only the reorganisation of services in east or west Kent, but the reform of the national health service nationwide.
I have already said that, following the announcement of the East Kent health authority's preferred option for two specialist hospitals in Thanet and Ashford, the Kent and Canterbury team began systematically to seek to undermine the work that had been done, in some cases by their own staff, to produce a blueprint for the future. That has grown into a campaign of misinformation, propagated in skilfully stage-managed and well-orchestrated medico-theatrical performances at public meetings. It has more to do with the abuse of power than people power, and could easily be replicated with interest in other parts of east Kent, throughout the county and beyond.
The purpose of the exercise is plainly to drown reasoned debate with noise, to force the East Kent health authority to resign en bloc, and to recommence the process of deliberation. The hidden agenda is to secure a single-site centre in Canterbury which would result in the tens of thousands of people who live on the coastal periphery and in the Ashford area no longer being within easy reach of the acute services that they currently enjoy.
Let me give a couple of examples of the misinformation. It has been suggested publicly that the Kent and Canterbury hospital is
the most efficient hospital in east Kent and that Thanet is one of the least efficient".
The perpetrators of that lie—for that is what it is—have been made aware that the figures on which the claim is based date from before the closure of the Ashford hospital, before the closure of the old and inefficient Ramsgate hospital, before the extension of new day surgery treatments, and, most significantly, during the transition period when the Royal Seabathing hospital in Margate was closing and the services were being transferred to the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital, which was a time of great disruption. The new figures are different, but the lie is still being peddled.
A consultant paediatrician working in neonatal intensive care in Canterbury, seeking to bolster the case for a three acute hospitals solution, claims to have blazed a trail by
brokering a three-centre solution for paediatric care in east Kent".
He is being more than a little economical with the truth. The facts are different. He argued for a single site—at the Kent and Canterbury hospital—for paediatrics in east Kent. That would result in children from the most deprived area in the south-east—Thanet—and those from Ashford having to travel to Canterbury with their parents for all in-patient treatment. With paediatrics would have gone obstetrics and most of the maternity services from the area where many of the region's babies are born.
That is what that consultant and his colleagues were trying to impose on my constituents. They fought that corner before 20 witnesses, including me, at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital. He pursued


the same self-interested line at the university of Kent during two days of discussion on the health service. In the words of one present, he
expressly and robustly argued for a single centre in Canterbury.
I am told that only when he was confronted with the reality that there was likely to be a two-centre solution to paediatric care at Ashford and Thanet did he change his tune and press for a three-centre service.
That is the truth, but not much of it is to be heard at public meetings, where teams of consultants and those who support them abuse their medical position to mislead. They have the power of life and death, but why should we believe their claims when we know that they have been less than honest in the past?
I now have to raise some highly sensitive issues about the health service in east Kent on behalf of those of my constituents from Herne Bay and Margate who have been subjected to the pathology services at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. It is widely believed that the senior medical staff at the Kent and Canterbury hospital were well aware of the shortcomings of its histo-pathology and cytology services, but chose to cover up the situation. That is why I have asked the General Medical Council to study the report of the inquiry into the circumstances under which eight women died and many others had needless operations. I am pleased that the GMC has confirmed that it is
investigating the issues relating to cervical cytology screening at the Kent and Canterbury hospital".
I hope that the General Medical Council and the Department of Health will also inquire fully into the other cytologies and histologies relating to lung, rectal and breast conditions. My constituents and I have a right to know what other loss of life there was at that hospital as a result of misreporting. I want to know whether consultants were using outside pathology for their private patients because they did not want to expose them to the suspect services in their hospital. I want to know who, outside the pathology services, knew what was going on and said nothing. I want to know whether they are still treating my constituents from Herne Bay and Margate in the Kent and Canterbury hospital.
I have already asked for a further inquiry into the full histo-pathology service at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, over which doubts still linger. It is time that the hospital came clean and told the whole truth. I do not believe that it has done so yet.
I also want to know how general practitioners dare—one certainly has—to tell consultants at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital that they will not allow their patients to be treated by them any more, other than at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. What does that have to do with health care, when the consultant may have a unique skill that patients need and that may save a life?
I wish to make myself understood by those in the House and those outside it. I am not seeking to punish the Kent and Canterbury hospital for the malpractice of some of its medical practitioners. I want the truth and I want to know with certainty that all those who have been responsible for putting lives at risk and for loss of life are no longer working in the health service in east Kent or anywhere else. If that includes some eminent and hitherto respected people, so be it.
My family has used the Kent and Canterbury hospital and may have to use it, or a new city hospital, in the future. I have a high personal regard for the care and

dedication offered by the nurses, by most of the medical staff and by the others on whom Kent and Canterbury and other hospitals depend. It is in all our interests that the issues should be resolved thoroughly, once and for all.
Finally, I return to my other concern. Some in the Kent and Canterbury hospital and the elected membership of the local authority are seeking—not in the interest of the health service provided to our constituents, but in the interest of their professional aggrandisement and comfort zones—to overturn, through intimidation and cacophony, the work done by the health authority and the rest of the NHS in east Kent on ensuring that the options are fully, honestly and openly explained and are understood by those who will be the users at the end of the process.
If he who makes the loudest noise is allowed to hold sway and the needs of institutions are put before people, if some of the most deprived in the country in Thanet and the elderly in Herne Bay and throughout east Kent are sacrificed to pacify those who are orchestrating the campaign, and if the recognition in last week's Green Paper of the link between social conditions and health is ignored, not only east Kent, but west Kent and the rest of the health service will lose. This will be a benchmark for the future. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on the Front Bench and the Minister to consider that, rather than party politics, when they respond.
I have taken more time than I wished. The East Kent health authority has courageously and methodically shown the way forward. It has said that it is willing to consider any practical and viable new proposals. I have made some workable suggestions for improvement, which I hope and believe will be listened to. We must remember that we in politics and those in the health service will have to work together when this difficult and painful process is over. I hope that all those of good will throughout Kent will shun those who are deliberately seeking to cause public strife and will concentrate on how best we can make the necessary reforms work.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Many hon. Members from the county would like to catch my eye. I appeal for brevity in the remainder of the debate.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate on health care and hospitals in Kent. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has spelt out some of the background of the pressures and changes that have brought us to the current situation. I shall not rehearse those issues. I certainly do not want to be involved in the hostile war of words raging between constituency and constituency, trust and trust and even consultant and consultant.
As we try to develop a new atmosphere in the health service, with the Government seeking ways in which trusts can co-operate and work together, looking for more unity among health authorities, it is a matter of great regret that the background to all the good words in the White Paper is being muddied by some of the practices in east Kent.
I was hopeful that the debate would provide an opportunity to draw some lines and find some ways of working towards a solution which would benefit people, patients and potential patients in east Kent, rather than highlight and inflame what is already a very difficult process. However, those are slim hopes.
I have been proud to be part of long-standing campaigns in Dover to maintain services for local people. In 1993, when there was a threat that services at Buckland hospital would be centralised at Ashford, 27,000 people signed petitions opposing the plans. In 1995, when there was a threat that the children's ward—the paediatric services—would be transferred from Buckland to Ashford, 40,000 people marched through the streets of Dover opposing the changes or presented petitions to the local health authority.
No one doubts the people's attachment to their hospitals. It is part of human nature to be loyal to one's hospital and have confidence in it, but times and the way in which health care is administered change, and we must understand and take notice of such factors. The same factors that drove proposals for changes in the past are driving the present proposals.
The review that the hon. Member for North Thanet has described has been conducted in a different atmosphere and a different way from previous reviews. Its analysis and recommendations were not dreamt up by bureaucrats and suddenly thrust on us from above. The so-called acute future groups comprised doctors, nurses and managers who practise in the health service, and involved the entire east Kent NHS family. We need to recognise the difference between how changes have been sought in the past and the way in which the latest process has been carried out. I welcome the method by which the changes have been sought—if not all the details and results. The results and recommendations are not infallible just because of the process. I have made it clear that the proposed cuts in Dover and Deal are totally unacceptable. However, the change of method gives a certain extra legitimacy to the exercise.
The consultation process will give us all an opportunity to challenge the recommendations and suggest different arrangements. The consultation document assures us that the changes are not driven by resources or costs. On page 1, it says:
It is a problem that cannot be solved simply by more money. Money has not caused it".
I welcome the hope expressed by the hon. Member for North Thanet that we can keep the issues out of the political sphere. I hope that his colleagues, present and past, will share his view that the important thing is to find solutions for people in east Kent rather than to kick about political footballs.
Although the plan concentrates acute services at Thanet and Ashford, there is still an option for change. If someone came forward during the consultation period with a plan to provide acute cover on all the present sites and meet all the criteria, it would, of course, be everyone's favoured option—both in the House and in my constituency. In reality, the fundamental change of concentrating acute services on two sites will probably prevail.
I shall concentrate my efforts this morning and in future on ensuring that hospitals in Buckland, Canterbury and Deal, and others mentioned by the hon. Member for North Thanet, are protected. We want to ensure that the impact of the proposed changes is not nearly as intense or damaging as those described in the consultation document.
If we are fully persuaded during the consultation process of the need for centralisation at Ashford and Thanet, and convinced that blue light admissions should no longer go to Buckland, Canterbury and others, that does not mean that Buckland and Canterbury should not continue to provide beds for acute or near acute recovery and convalescence. I think that we are all agreed on that.
People might be persuaded that, in their moment of crisis during their acute episodes, they must be ambulanced to a top-notch centre of excellence in the next town, which is complete with the best trained consultants, the best diagnosis equipment and the best access to specialised services. However, they will not accept that, having been diagnosed, having received their immediate treatment or having recovered from their operation, they should have to spend two, three, four or five more weeks recovering in a distant hospital, away from their homes, relatives and would-be visitors.
During all my discussions with health officials over past years, I have always been assured that Buckland beds would always be needed and that there would always be facilities for recovery locally. Unfortunately, that philosophy seems to have changed over the past few months—if not during the review. Now, health professionals are telling us that the recovery process is hampered, hindered or set back if a patient is moved from an acute hospital to their locality. They are telling us that the full range of acute services must be on hand during nearly all the recovery period. We cannot accept that change. We need to strike a balance between the need for fast, efficient recovery and the need of patients to be closer to home.
In my constituency, there is a disproportionate number of elderly people and households that do not own or have access to cars. The changes will be particularly to the disbenefit of patients and their families. If the people I represent in Dover, Deal and Aylesham are to swallow the bitter pill of losing acute services at Buckland, the pill must at least be sweetened by the prospect of retaining a significant measure of acute recovery services in local hospitals. Unless we can claw back some of the services, we shall lose a total of 500 beds in Canterbury, Deal and Buckland, which will be totally unacceptable to local people.
I am pleased to say that the South Kent Hospitals NHS trust shares local concerns with respect to Buckland. Its concerns have been included in the consultation document, and I hope that they will be taken into account. As well as increasing the number of beds at Buckland and other local hospitals, we see a case for 24-hour casualty cover at Buckland and the need to increase community health services in places such as Aylesham, Elvington and others mentioned by the hon. Member for North Thanet. Parallel to the campaign to maintain beds is the need to boost support for our general practices and health centres. If the health authority is to achieve the changes that it believes will benefit all the people in east Kent, it must take note of their very strong feelings.

Mr. Julian Brazier: My local community faces two serious threats: the rundown of the Kent and Canterbury hospital to a virtual cottage hospital and the closure of the much-loved Whitstable and Tankerton community hospital. As time is so short, I shall focus only on the Kent and Canterbury hospital.
Members of all parties agree that doctor training and working practices are driving the proposal. Hence, it is astonishing that the proposal has been prepared without any consultation with the royal colleges, and that the Royal College of Physicians has written to denounce the cornerstone of the findings.
Perhaps that should not surprise us, because during its studies East Kent health authority did not consult any of the royal colleges, the British Medical Association or the unions, and did not even speak to its neighbouring health authorities.
I understand the strong feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), but I wish that he had felt able to take the tone of his speech from Sian MacGregor, one of the cytology victims, who recently spoke out to defend the Kent and Canterbury hospital. She said:
The whole hospital must not be blamed
for the sake of one small department. After compensation has been paid, she said,
we must move on".
Let us remember that that department is being closed, the three consultants responsible have gone, the chief executive has resigned, and even the chairman of the hospital, although exonerated in the report, has resigned. I was pleased that Sir William Wells made similar points in his report.
I have sent 1,200 individually written letters to the Secretary of State—the bundle that I have here represents the last three days' worth—and I have passed back to other Members who are here in the Chamber on both sides of the House many dozens of letters from their constituents supporting the Kent and Canterbury hospital.
However, I shall base my case not on my own constituents but on one central theme: the fact that the plans of the East Kent health authority—EKHA—for the reorganisation of services in east Kent represent a potential disaster for the whole region.
East Kent has five regional services, and all are located at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. The cancer centre has just won a charter mark for excellence—laying to rest the ghosts of the cervical smear tragedy. Only three hospitals in the country obtained a charter mark for cancer treatment last year.
When the EKHA carried out its studies on the future of our hospital services and rushed them through without consultation in the four months for which the clinical teams met, the teams were repeatedly told by the authority, supported by consultants from other hospitals, that the regional services, including those for cancer, could be operated independently of a major acute site with intensive care and other related facilities.
At the eleventh hour, the EKHA finally had to concede that it was impossible to run such services outside a major acute site, and that they would all have to go. Instead of

reopening the clinical study groups, it decided to categorise that as a "risk factor". It certainly is a risk factor to break up five excellent teams.
To make matters worse, the EKHA planned to take many of those services out of east Kent. How are radiotherapy patients without cars expected to get to Maidstone for treatment, on some of the most congested roads in the United Kingdom? How can anyone think of moving neonatal intensive care to Chatham? How many tiny premature babies will die as a result? After all, they are the most vulnerable patients.
The second argument rests on quality. The Government have made it clear in their White Paper that the views of general practitioners are to be of paramount importance. Every GP, both in the Canterbury district council area and in Faversham and Sandwich, has opposed the plans for the Kent and Canterbury. Those GPs speak for 160,000 patients—40,000 more than the entire population of Thanet; yet they are being ignored.
On the EKHA's own figures, the Kent and Canterbury is the most efficient hospital in east Kent. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said, and I understand why he feels able to criticise the EKHA's table. None the less, we must bear in mind the fact that the table also showed that the Kent and Canterbury was more efficient than all the hospitals in west Kent.
The third argument rests on the public transport issue. We heard a senior officer from Kent county council say as recently as last week that it is not possible to reconfigure a bus service on the basis of patients' use. According to the EKHA's population figures, 212,000 people live in the villages of east Kent. That is nearly two fifths of the population, and almost all of them are closest to either Ashford or Canterbury. Canterbury is, of course, the hub of the bus system in east Kent.
In contrast, it is extremely difficult to reach Thanet by bus from almost all the villages. Indeed, I understand that the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who will no doubt contribute to the debate, recently had a hard time with his constituents in Wingham because of their problems in reaching the hospital in Thanet even from there.
That brings me to my final argument—hospital co-operation. I do not call for the closure of the hospital in Thanet, which is the only alternative option that the EKHA recognises. I believe that what has really initiated the crisis that is forcing the EKHA to propose the closure of a hospital, just after heavily investing in regional facilities there and working out the three-site solution for children's services, is Thanet's inability to recruit adequate numbers of consultants.
That problem has existed ever since I became a Member of Parliament, but it has worsened recently. The EKHA seems to believe that if Kent and Canterbury were closed, Thanet could somehow be made more attractive, but, for years, consultants have been attracted to east Kent to work at Thanet by offering them joint posts with the Kent and Canterbury. No fewer than 19 Kent and Canterbury-based consultants work regularly at the Thanet hospital. Canterbury, with all the attractions of a regional centre of excellence and with a whole range of services, can sugar the pill of having to work at a comparatively remote location.
If the hospital in Canterbury is closed, the much greater distance to Ashford—nearly 40 miles on one of the worst roads in England—will make the operation of joint


working and training arrangements impossible, not least because of the factors affecting junior doctors' hours that have already been alluded to. That means that, if recruiting problems continue, a multi-site option will no longer be available because the middle one of the three sites will have been removed.
If Thanet is unable to recruit and fill its posts and its retention and accreditation problems continue, there will be no fallback position. Shortages of trained personnel are worsening nationally, so the outlook is not good. Let us remember that the Kent and Canterbury is the only hospital in east Kent with all the relevant doctors' posts fully accredited by the royal colleges.
The EKHA has announced out of the blue that a major hospital in east Kent, at which the authority has recently invested heavily in regional services, must close. Its only argument is based on the areas of doctor training, recruitment and working for which the royal colleges are responsible, despite the fact that the Royal College of Physicians has begged to differ with it.
I believe that, by integrating training across all three sites—the multi-site option is possible if the middle site remains—the royal colleges' requirements can be met. That has already been done with children's services.
The proposal would involve uprooting our regional facilities, closing east Kent's best hospital and leaving two sites too far apart for joint activities. That would be a disaster for east Kent as a whole. We need an evolutionary approach and the restructuring of management and of doctors' working practices, not the closure of hospitals.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I have been made aware that a number of hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be as brief as possible.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on securing the debate, and I associate myself with almost everything he said. That is a rather strange experience for me. If anyone had asked me a year ago with whom I thought I would be fighting back to back in a huge political battle, I would scarcely have said the hon. Member for North Thanet, but that is how things have worked out. I congratulate him on taking a bipartisan approach to the issue and thank him for working with me to try to convey to the people of east Kent a more constructive message about the East Kent health authority proposals.
That has been difficult because of the huge campaign that has been whipped up about the Kent and Canterbury hospital. I understand the emotions of the people of Canterbury, but, having listened to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), the House will realise why 1,200 letters were written. For example, he said that the Kent and Canterbury is to be reduced to the status of a cottage hospital. That is not so. Under the health authority's proposals, the Kent and Canterbury will retain a casualty unit, maternity services, out-patient clinics, day surgery, rehabilitation wards and wards for the elderly. I believe that it could also retain a range of other services.
The hon. Member for Canterbury asked how many babies would die because the neonatal intensive care unit is to be moved. I tell him how many will die: none.
A baby's condition is stabilised before it is moved to a neonatal intensive care unit. At present, babies born at Thanet who require the services of the unit must have their condition stabilised before they are moved to the unit in Canterbury. It will make no difference that they will have to be moved somewhere else; the fact that they will have the best possible staff and services makes the difference.
A recent campaign in a Canterbury newspaper featured a front-page picture of a baby, with a caption saying that it would have died if the neonatal intensive care unit had not been at Canterbury. That is completely false. The baby's condition had to be stabilised before it was moved to the unit. The newspaper did not point out that the consultant who saved the baby's life had had to travel from Thanet.
Such scaremongering and shroud-waving has whipped up a campaign that is no longer in the control of the Kent and Canterbury trust and of those people who want a constructive debate. We now have to contend with a monster that is blind to the facts and deaf to argument. I appeal to all sides to take a more constructive line.
I come to pathology and the recent report on cytology. I stress the need for a much broader inquiry into not only cytology, but the range of pathology services at the Kent and Canterbury. That is not because I do not believe that the situation has been resolved—I am confident that the new unit is efficient and properly led with qualified and competent staff. However, I am not confident that all the lessons were learned from the pathology debacle, that we reached the root of the matter, or that everyone was called to account.
On 20 November last year, I tabled some parliamentary questions to shed some light on the issue; I hoped that the answers would give an idea of when clinicians in east Kent, especially at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, realised that there was a problem and whether they had dealt with the problem there and then. The questions that showed that pathology services had improved received a proper response, whereas those that would have revealed that problems were not identified soon enough did not receive full answers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look again at those answers.
I believe that a study of referral patterns over the past 10 years will show that there was a point at which Kent and Canterbury clinicians started to refer their private patients to a different hospital for pathology services while they continued to send their national health service patients to a hospital whose pathology service they knew to be flawed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) is indicating that she would like me to come to a speedy conclusion, so I shall speak briefly about the process of rationalisation. The review process was agreed on all sides. It involved clinicians of all types; it did not include politicians. It was described at several public meetings. There were no complaints about the process until the downgrading of the status of the Kent and Canterbury hospital was recommended. All the hospital trusts were clearly instructed to consult internally, to ensure that the views of the hospitals were known.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so, in associating myself with the comments of the hon. Member for North Thanet, I make a final appeal for a much more constructive debate. We should prioritise outcomes;


we must create a hospital service in east Kent that gives patients the best chance of recovery. Important as other issues, including transport, are, they must be secondary. As there is no practical option for a three-site acute service, we must, on the available evidence, accept the preference expressed by the East Kent health authority, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will ratify.

Mr. Michael Howard: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on securing this debate. My constituency no longer has within its boundaries a hospital that provides the full range of services; that battle was fought and lost long before I had the honour to become its Member of Parliament. However, it does contain the Royal Victoria hospital, which is briefly described in the East Kent health authority's consultation document as having
92 beds providing care of the elderly and GP beds".
Those few words do not begin to convey the excellence of the care that is provided in that hospital, the warmth and the tenderness with which the nursing staff carry out their duties, or the evident appreciation with which the patients respond.
I have long been associated with the Royal Victoria. Some years ago, I was able to persuade one of the East Kent health authority's predecessor bodies to establish a minor injuries unit at the hospital. I was there just a few days ago to visit John Jacques, a distinguished citizen and former mayor of Folkestone. I was deeply impressed then, as I always have been, by the way in which patients are looked after.
The health authority proposes to reduce the number of beds at the hospital from 92 to 70. There is a further proposal to relocate the Arundel unit—a mental health unit—from the William Harvey hospital at Ashford to the Royal Victoria. I am at a loss to understand the logic behind those proposals. The general case for fewer beds is apparently based on a report referred to on page 12 of the consultation document, which concluded that the people of east Kent use hospitals more than most. However, that does not apply to the elderly who use most of the beds in the Royal Victoria. The case for a reduction in the number of beds at that hospital has not been made.
The hospital is located near the centre of Folkestone and close to several schools, so it is an inappropriate site for the mental health unit that is currently at the William Harvey hospital in Ashford. The East Kent health authority's proposals for the Royal Victoria are mistaken and misconceived, and I oppose them.
The proposals are a consequence of the larger proposals that have been discussed in the debate. I approached them with an open mind. Most of my constituents use the William Harvey hospital at Ashford, to which I am a frequent visitor. I am impressed by the quality of care that it provides.
A substantial number of my constituents use the Kent and Canterbury hospital, however. It is particularly convenient for those of my constituents who live in the Elham valley. Public transport links between Elham valley and Canterbury are relatively good, but public transport between Elham valley and Ashford is virtually non-existent.
At my last surgery in Elham, Mrs. Monica Russell—the wife of the vicar of Elham—brought along an elaborate map that she had made of the public transport links between various parts of my constituency and the hospitals which serve them. It is a remarkable document, which she has supplied to the community health council. It brought home to me that the implications of accessibility involved in the proposals are even greater than I had originally thought. Accessibility is one of the key criteria by which proposals of this kind must be judged.
I am convinced that the disadvantages of the health authority proposals in terms of accessibility are severe. They would have a particularly harsh effect on those of my constituents who are least well-off. This applies not only to those who are patients, but to those visiting friends and neighbours who are patients. The disadvantages could only be justified by overwhelming compensatory advantages. I am not convinced that the consultation document identifies any such overwhelming compensatory advantages.
The problem it seeks to remedy is not, we are told, caused by money or the lack of it, and would not be solved by more money. At the heart of it are factors involving the supply of doctors, the way they are trained and the new ways in which they need to work. The document says that the royal colleges recommend a minimum population for a main hospital, although in a rural area—such as that with which we are concerned—the same advantages can be achieved by two hospitals working together more closely.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has pointed out, the Royal College of Physicians has emphatically denied the health authority's claim. The case, to put it mildly, is nothing like as straightforward as the health authority suggests. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet is justified in describing those who favour the retention of three hospitals providing acute services as "dishonest". There is room for honest disagreement.
I shall follow the consultation process closely and I shall listen with interest to the Minister. The arguments must be tested thoroughly over the next three months. As things stand, my judgment is that the case for the health authority's proposals is far from made out.

Mr. Damian Green: I shall be extremely brief, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) wishes to speak as well. I give a partial welcome to the health authority's proposals, but I urge the Minister and the Government to make the consultation period under the health authority—and beyond, when the decision goes to the Secretary of State—a real one, and not simply a period of time-serving.
I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who said that there is the possibility of honest disagreement about the proposals. They may broadly be on the right lines, but there are flaws and deficiencies in the proposals.
Both the main options include the William Harvey hospital in Ashford as a significant provider of the full range of services. This is clearly sensible, for four reasons. First, the hospital is appropriately placed, only 100 yards


from the motorway network. Secondly, most of the population growth in east Kent over the next decade will be in the Ashford area. Thirdly, the hospital has an excellent record in acute care and in certain key specialties. Fourthly, there is a possibility of expanding the site to absorb new services, given that a 20-acre site with planning permission restricted to health-related uses is immediately next to the current site.
There are other pressures which the health authority has not taken into account. A minority of my constituents look to the Kent and Canterbury hospital as their principal hospital provider, either because of its sheer geographical proximity or because they use the specialist services. One flaw in the proposal is the wholesale removal of those specialist services from Canterbury. Cancer has been much discussed this morning, and removing the cancer service from east Kent would put unnecessary pressure on Maidstone and would be bad for the population of east Kent. Clearly, change is needed in terms of the disposition of specialist services around east Kent.
Another potential flaw involves the future of the smaller hospitals. One such hospital which has not been mentioned is West View in Tenterden, which is searching hard for a solution combining NHS use with use by Kent social services and private nursing home beds to enable it to survive. The authority's move to close West View—after a long period in which proposals for a private finance initiative were discussed—follows the wrong kind of consultation. One hopes that that will not be repeated in the wider sphere of the consultation on these proposals.
The one-trust option would be bad for east Kent, as it would be an attempt at a bureaucratic solution which would not reflect reality. There may be evidence which has not yet been found for a three-site option. Clearly, the Secretary of State will need to have three things on his mind: the need to maintain the balance between the quality of care and the ease of access; the need to staunch the flow of money out of east Kent to, in the large part, the London hospitals which, for perfectly good reasons, are more expensive and thus cost the NHS more money; and the need to provide suitable training opportunities.
The decisions taken in the next few months will decide the quality of health care for the population of east Kent for the next 10 years. They require a serious and unemotional debate.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I wish to raise a couple of points in the minute that I have. First, I am sceptical of the present proposals, not least because the costings seem to be extremely dubious. I understand that the estimate given by the health authority for moving the cancer services to Maidstone is about £0.5 million. The chief executive of the Maidstone trust, when consulted, said that he thought it would be much closer to £10 million. Since neither the Mid-Kent Healthcare trust nor the West Kent health authority was consulted at all by the East Kent health authority—they do not appear in the list of consultees—I cannot believe that the consultation is soundly based.
Secondly, the recent radio debate showed clearly that, on the whole, the layman—the non-medical professional-behaved in a more mature and sophisticated


fashion than anyone else. I was absolutely appalled by the animosity between the various medical directors and the chief executives of the trusts. One of the great weaknesses of the consultation document is that no consultation at all has taken place with the sophisticated lay people who are the users and financiers of the NHS.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on introducing the debate, and on doing so with such style and vigour. This debate shows our system working at its very best. There is nothing more passionate than a Member of Parliament on either side of the House arguing passionately for what he believes to be in the very best interests of his constituents.
Even if time would allow me, I am a bit too long in the tooth to make the mistake of trying to appear as the deus ex machina at the Dispatch Box, trying to work out the rights and wrongs of everything my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet drew to the attention of the House.
I was impressed when the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) reminded us that there is a feeling of loyalty to a local hospital—and so there should be. Our whole political structure is based on the local Member of Parliament having a local feel for his local people, and arguing passionately for them. It can be difficult at times—and sometimes even inappropriate—for a Member of Parliament to look at things dispassionately. One takes a view and makes a decision about what is right in the interests of one's constituents, and one argues for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was more brave about doctors than I will be. It has been my experience in my half century on this earth that doctors can be quite ferocious in their disagreements with each other. It would be a brave man who would say that any given collection of doctors was right or wrong. In defending the medical profession—in case I have to see a doctor in the near future—I must say that although they are arguing, as Sydney Smith said, from "entirely different premises", and therefore can never agree, they believe passionately in their case at the time. It makes it difficult for the layman to work out who is right and who is wrong.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nicholls: I am sorry, but time does not allow me to give way.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) came to the debate with his usual silken analysis. He said that, very often in these situations of inevitable complexity, honest people will honestly disagree.
I cannot pretend to understand the merits and demerits of the minutiae of the plan, and it would be a brave person who said he did. However, I suspect that it is a situation in which honest people will passionately disagree from the best of motives. Fortunately, our system is eminently sophisticated. When irreconcilable positions have to be dealt with—when circles have to be squared and the judgment of Job made—we know that our opinions will


reach the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of State, from whom I am sure we all greatly look forward to hearing.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I shall have to employ the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) as a warm-up man. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on securing a debate on a matter of concern to him and his constituents, as well as the other right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I applaud all those who have raised the issue with me privately and in the Chamber, both today and on previous occasions.
I was pleased that the hon. Member for North Thanet said at the outset that the issue was not party political, a point borne out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). The nature of the debate has fully testified to that approach. The debate has also highlighted that health service change in Kent, as elsewhere, is a complex and contentious issue.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the debate in east Kent has been going on for some time. I fully understand the real concerns about the future of hospital services in the area. Local communities rightly feel a strong attachment to their local hospitals and want to know what the future holds for them. As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) suggested, that is a concern among patients and the public, as well as the hard-working NHS staff. I understand the anxieties aroused by consultation of the sort that is being undertaken, but it is vital that health authorities get decisions about the future of local health services right. The worst outcome is for decisions to be rushed and to be wrong.
I wish to make two points clear at the outset. First, I want to encourage local people and local organisations to participate fully in the consultation exercise. Many of the points that have been raised this morning are matters for response during the consultation process. Secondly, I wish to assure local people in east Kent—including the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and his constituents—that the consultation is genuine. I read the consultation document yesterday with great care. It explicitly seeks views on one option, and it also asks for alternatives to be suggested in the next few months.
I shall dispose of one other misconception, and it is a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. The proposals are not primarily driven by questions of finance. The major problem confronting the NHS in east Kent, as elsewhere, is the supply of doctors, the way they train and the ways that they need to work to ensure the best outcomes for patients. That is what we all want, and that is what unites all right hon. and hon. Members. Those who say that the answer lies simply in putting more money into the local health service have got it wrong. We can put more money in, and we will, and we can take money out of bureaucracy, and we will, but the fundamental problem will remain.
I am aware that work is in hand across Kent to review patterns of hospital services. West Kent health authority has faced similar issues to East Kent in terms of the need to consider the best future pattern for acute hospital services. I assure hon. Members—especially the right hon.
and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who has had to leave the Chamber—that the two health authorities are working closely together to ensure that their strategies coalesce. I can assure the House that the NHS executive regional office will keep a weather eye on developments to ensure that the two proposals that emerge align for the benefit of patients.
Co-operation should be the order of the day in east Kent. We have already seen a huge collaborative effort from all parts of the NHS in the area. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the background to the issue arose from the preparation for the consultation exercise. Right hon. and hon. Members were right to point out that that preparation included the involvement of professionals from the secondary and primary care sectors. In addition, late last year efforts were made by the health authority to consult local community representatives, including local Members of Parliament and local authorities, before the consultation exercise. I am satisfied that consultation took place ahead of the consultation document being issued. That does not mean that every "i" that is dotted and every "t" that is crossed in the consultation document is necessarily right. I assure the House that the document is a genuine consultation document and is open to amendment.
I am also aware of the public commitment given by the chairs and chief executives of NHS organisations in east Kent to work together to ensure that the public debate about the future pattern of hospital services is as informed and mature as possible. As we know, that is no easy task, because emotions are inevitably running high and local people have real concerns and fears about the process. However, it is important that we conduct the debate maturely and as openly as possible. A start has been made with the establishment of three principles. First, it is recognised that chairs and chief executives of the trusts and health authority in east Kent have a responsibility for the whole health service in the area, as well as for their individual organisations.
Secondly, it is recognised that, within a broad framework, each organisation has a right to put its case and should do so, but—whatever the outcome of the review—the different parts of the NHS in east Kent will have to work together in the future. Joint work is critical to the successful implementation of change.
Thirdly, it is recognised that how a case is put is as important as the substance of the case. An informed debate will be marked by moderate language: an ill-informed debate will be marked by immoderate language. I applaud the commitment that has been given to those principles and I expect nothing less. However, if there were any evidence of intimidation and threats—and I have heard such suggestions from several quarters—I would be extremely concerned, as would the NHS regional office. We will not countenance such behaviour. We need an intelligent debate about the future of health services in the area.
I have been very encouraged by the decision of the health authority and the trusts' chief executives to reconvene the "Tomorrow's Health Care" steering group. The reconvened group will ensure a joint mechanism for assessing and discussing alternative proposals to the authority's preferred option, or variations on options, that may arise during the consultation. That reflects a continued willingness to try to put aside any sectional


interests and to work together to find a way forward that makes the best possible sense for the NHS and the people of east Kent.
Right hon. and hon. Members will understand that I cannot be drawn into consideration of the merits of the authority's options, or any alternatives to them. Consultation on the options has just begun and it will end on 8 May. I assure the House that no decisions have yet been taken and there will be plenty of opportunity to scrutinise the authority's proposals, to review the assumptions that underpin them, to test them against alternatives and to make other suggestions. The health authority has signalled its willingness to listen, and I would expect no less of it. Should the authority's final proposals be contested by either of the local community health councils, the final decision will rest with Ministers. I must and will keep an open mind until then. If the decision comes to Ministers, it will be fully informed by the responses to the health authority's consultation, and based on a balanced assessment of the proposals.
One thing is certain. Standing still is not an option for the national health service. The NHS in east Kent has to change. I want it, as I am sure do all hon. Members, to become more modern and dependable. Precisely what form the change should take in hospital services is a matter of intense local debate. The NHS there must fulfil its duty to explain to the public why change is necessary and how it will strengthen the local health service. I am sure that hon. Members will continue to represent their constituents' interests both here and locally. I hope that they will use their enormous influence to play their part in persuading the people of east Kent that change is essential to a modern national health service. I expect the health authority to take into account all the points that have been raised this morning in considering responses to the formal consultation. I urge all interested parties to work together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

NHS Maternity Services

11 am

Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to open this important debate. The national health service is half a century old and can rightly be proud of its progress on safe deliveries during that time. In 1960, there were 30 stillbirths per 1,000; by 1992, that had been reduced to eight per 1,000. That is real progress, but there are still concerns as regards the poorer parts of our community and ethnic minorities. Firm progress is required in that respect.
By 1992, 99 per cent. of babies were born in maternity units. Until that time, the thrust of the Health Department's policy was for all children to be born in maternity units. That assumption was challenged by the Select Committee on Health under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in 1991 and 1992, which concluded that women should be given far more information about childbirth and the opportunities open to them, and the choice of home delivery or delivery in a maternity unit.
The Committee's report led the Government to set up their own inquiry, the expert maternity group, under Lady Cumberlege. Its extensive investigations led to the milestone document, "Changing Childbirth" in 1993, on which our assumptions about childbirth are now based. In particular, it enjoined local health authorities to review what progress they should make in the light of the recommendations over five years.
Stress was laid on several points. First, the prospective mother should have a named midwife to ensure continuity from the moment of knowledge of conception through to the birth and after. Secondly, the mother should be entitled to see her medical notes. Third of the salient features was that she must be given a choice about where the baby is to be born. That could be in a general hospital under the guidance of a specialist, in a general practitioner-led unit, a midwife-led unit or at home. There was some evidence that GPs were loth to recommend prospective mothers to go anywhere other than a general hospital, under the guidance of a specialist. That led to the under-use of small maternity units, especially in small towns and rural areas.
Polls have been carried out on maternity. One by MORI earlier in the decade showed that the overwhelming majority of women would like choice and that many would consider a small maternity unit or the opportunity to give birth at home. Such opportunities have been missed for decades. While we were improving the safety rate, choice was going out of the system. Mothers were being guided—that is the lightest word that I can use—towards a certain pattern of giving birth. Control was not in their hands but in those of the authorities. I am loth to use clichés such as "women-centred" or "child-centred" but, to revert to English, they mean that the person in charge of the operation, the mother, should make the decisions. That is the clear thrust of "Changing Childbirth".
I have introduced the debate, knowing that some of my hon. Friends have similar problems in their constituencies, because several health reviews are going on in the counties. I heard the end of the previous debate on health services in our neighbouring county of Kent. There appears to be some diversity of view about how to proceed. I was greatly reassured when my hon. Friend the Minister of State for


Health stressed the importance of real consultation. It might be well said, "Heaven preserve me from consultation," since consultation—not invariably but sometimes—results in conclusions that are at odds with the views expressed by those consulted.
The reports of the Select Committee and of the Government's expert maternity group work, and "Changing Childbirth" have a clear emphasis. The Committee's report states:
We recommend that the policy of closing small rural maternity units on presumptive grounds of safety be abandoned forthwith. We further recommend that no decision be taken to close such a unit unless it can be explicitly and incontrovertibly demonstrated that they are failing to provide value for money and that the costs to the consumers are carefully taken into account in making such calculations. We recommend that in considering an appeal against the closure of such a unit, the Secretary of State should make presumption against closure unless the case is overwhelming, since we believe that there is a shift in attitude towards maternity care which can only be met by maintaining such units as a realistically available option.
That is the kernel of my case.
Our health authority in north Essex has recently been through a consultation exercise ironically entitled, "Taking the Initiative". Unison has drawn up a report entitled, "Taking Liberties". Local people often refer to it as taking the mickey. In essence, the consultation exercise has gone through. The term "taking the initiative" may be right if taken at face value, since the initiative has been taken to defy every guideline and inspiration in "Changing Childbirth": the conclusion is at complete odds with that which one might have assumed if the exercise had followed the guidelines.
Although the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is not here, he spoke to me yesterday. In Maldon he has a problem similar to mine in Braintree. The closure of both our maternity units is proposed. I think that I have his authority to say that what I have to say about Braintree he would echo on behalf of Maldon. In Braintree, it is proposed to close the William Julian Courtauld hospital and move its facilities to another site. Maternity services will slip during that move, so that no maternity service will be based in the town of Braintree.
The consultation exercise took the views of local residents. Some 600 or more attended public meetings, and unanimously expressed the opinion that the maternity service should remain. It took the view of local GPs, who thought that maternity services should remain in a local unit in the town of Braintree. It took the views of the local authority, Braintree district council, which thought that maternity services should remain. It took the view of the community health council, which thought that maternity services should remain. The local authority spoke to midwives, who said that maternity services should remain. It spoke to parish councils, which said that maternity services should remain. Everyone the local health authority spoke to in the town of Braintree and the surrounding villages gave the same answer.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that health authorities not only have failed to listen to the people who care for people and provide front-line services but ignore proposals put to them by midwives, doctors and others involved in local health services? Is that the case in my hon. Friend's constituency?

Mr. Hurst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has similar problems to those who represent Braintree,

Maldon and Chelmsford. He makes the point well. The word "ignore" is perhaps too strong, but it appears that health authorities have misjudged—if I may put it that way—the views expressed to them by the local people. That is especially true in Braintree.
The W. J. Courtauld hospital may be familiar to hon. Members. It was founded and set up by the Courtauld family shortly after the first world war in recognition of the contribution made by its work force in Braintree, Bocking and Halstead to the war effort and the success of the Courtauld family. It was further supported by subscription of the working people of Braintree. It has become a hospital for which people have great love and affection.
In the previous debate, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said that there was great importance to be attached to local hospitals and the affections that they bring forth in local people. They are an asset that should be lost only slowly if they are to be lost at all.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: In my constituency, we have the same problem. My health authority wants to transfer maternity services away from Pinderfields general hospital, leaving a large area without cover. One of the reasons given is that the number of births in the area is too low. Another is the difficulty in recruiting qualified and efficient staff. I have listened to my hon. Friend giving the details of his case. Has he been given the same reasons?

Mr. Hurst: It is clear that the same arguments are used in every area. The ratio of midwives to patients at our local hospital is 1:19. I believe that, in the town of Maldon, it is 1:16. In Chelmsford, to which mothers from Maldon and Braintree will have to go, it is 1:48. There is a section in the consultation document entitled "Equality". It is an old form of equality that I thought went out a long time ago, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is called levelling down. The argument is that, because we in Braintree, Maldon and certain other country towns have a good service, it should be taken away from us. The terrific result is a move from 1:48 to 1:42 in Chelmsford. So the people of Chelmsford do not benefit substantially, but the people of the country towns of north Essex lose substantially.
The people who lose most of all are the poorer residents of country towns in north Essex. They have to travel to the nearest large town at enormous inconvenience to them and their relatives—the woman's husband, mother, father or whoever wishes to visit her. The closure of the local hospital is a fundamental attack on the rights and equality of poorer people, especially those living in country areas and small towns. That was mentioned in the debate last Wednesday about rural poverty. I am disappointed to hear that the problem is not localised; it is clearly occurring in other areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich rightly said that health authorities do not appear to listen. I referred earlier to the W. J. Courtauld hospital, founded by the Courtauld family. A hospital support group has recently been formed to support services. Its committee is chaired by a descendent of the Courtauld family, Julian Courtauld. It has led an active and well-researched campaign to show that there is no benefit in financial or material terms to the proposals.
The exercise started out as an attempt to save money. The argument was that the health trust and hence the health authority were not balancing their budgets so savings needed to be found. The original figure floated around was some £6 million. I fully accept that the Government have provided north Essex with additional funding of £17.5 million, which I believe in growth terms came to £7.8 million. So on the face of it, the deficit was balanced. But health authority deficits are rather like a mirage. When one gets close to them, they disappear, only to reappear further down the road, probably in rather larger form. I give some humble and modest advice to my Government. When money is given to health authorities, they should ensure that it will be spent on what we wish.
I shall draw my remarks to a close, because I know that several other hon. Members are anxious to speak about problems similar to those in Braintree and north Essex. I am sure that hon. Members agree that an enormous advance was made with the publication of "Changing Childbirth". The principles enshrined in it appear to be welcomed by everyone in every profession and walk of life connected with health. It will be a great tragedy if health authorities take it on themselves to undermine those principles without even saving any money. My health authority has pledged that the money saved by closing the Maldon and Braintree units will be transferred to a new low-cost unit in Chelmsford. So there is no cost saving. The closures are a further attack on the rights of women to give birth where they wish and on the rights of poorer country and small town people.
I conclude by quoting from the latest document, the White Paper entitled "The New NHS". It follows the same principles. It appears that the Government do not live in the past—in 1992 or 1993. The White Paper says:
Too often in the past community hospitals have been sidelined. Their potential contribution to managing the pressures of rising emergency admissions has often been ignored. Patients will be able to use local community hospitals to the full rather than having to travel to more distant acute hospitals. This will be particularly significant in rural areas.
I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this case before the House today. I look forward to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House who, I fear, have experiences similar to ours in Braintree.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am delighted to speak in this debate not only because I have delivered babies, but because I have been delivered of three babies. I have personal experience, but I shall not bore hon. Members with the details of my labours. I am sure that they suffer under that yoke far too much with their own families.
Until I arrived on this planet, I was involved with the management of and liaison with community maternity services in the health area in which I worked. So I am delighted to speak in support of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). I thank him for introducing the debate. No one would dispute the need for a woman-centred approach to childbirth. It is welcome that we have moved away from the notion that women should give birth wired up like robots. That used to be the case in the not so distant past. If we are to move away from that model, we have a lot of things to think about. I should like to share them with the House.
First, if we are to have woman-centred childbirth and maternity care, in which care and time is spent on each patient, with midwives travelling from home to home and community base to community base as well as working in hospitals, we will need more midwives. There will be big staffing implications: the more time that is spent on patients, the more staff will be needed. Therefore, we cannot get away with the present exhausted band of midwives. Although they do the most fantastic job, they are frequently overworked, terribly pressed and unable to take proper holidays. We must remember that the staffing implications of any new policy also have financial implications.
Although we want women to be able to exercise choice about where they give birth, we must also consider their safety and that of the child. I fully appreciate that, in the majority of cases, childbirth is a perfectly easy thing—women are delivered of babies and babies are born whatever happens. It is worth noting, however, that the reductions in perinatal and maternal mortality rates achieved in recent years have been due to medical intervention and good obstetric care. We must consider safety.
If we are to provide safety, we must have midwives out in the community, backed up by ambulances that are specially designated for maternity care. In the 1960s, they used to be known as flying squads. Those special ambulances should be able go out to patients and babies who are in distress and bring them to a properly equipped centre. We must also have GPs who can competently intervene, and obstetricians on call to intervene if necessary. All those requirements need extra funding.
We must also make sure that special care baby units, or SCBUs as they are fondly known by my medical colleagues, are easily available and well equipped, and that their staff are well trained.
In my area of Kingston and Richmond, great efforts have been made to personalise maternity care. Kingston hospital has one of the most beautiful new maternity units that I have seen, with wonderful wards for women in labour, which look like hotel rooms. They have comfortable reclining chairs for the poor old husband, who, as we all know, suffers far more than the woman, as well as televisions and drinks facilities. At the flick of a switch, however, such rooms can be converted into a delivery room with high-tech hospital care. Unfortunately, the pressure on that unit is so great, with women coming in thick and fast, and the staff are so short on the ground, that those lovely hotel-like facilities which enable women to relax and enjoy their childbirth are not used very much. The switch is always flicked to the delivery mode, and as soon as one mother has delivered, she is out, and the next mother has to come in. Again, it is a matter of resources.
The Liberal Democrats would support women-centred childbirth, but, like care in the community, it is not a cheap option. That is the major point I want to stress. As with care in the community, if the policy is to be introduced properly so that women have choice, adequate funds must be provided. We know how difficult that is. I am not saying that the Government should spend, spend, spend, but the provision of women-centred childbirth is not as easy as it sounds, it needs additional resources.
We believe that maternity services and child health are probably among the top priorities for our health service, and we would like such priorities to be drawn up nationally. I hope that the House realises, however, the huge financial implications.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) mentioned briefly the fact that, this year, extra money has been given to North East Essex health authority. I should like to thank the Minister and the Government for that, as well as for the additional winter pressure money and money for breast cancer treatment. That funding has been well received in my constituency.
Maternity services are of great significance within my constituency. The overwhelming impression that anyone would gain from reading "Changing Childbirth" is that it is designed to promote and increase the choice available to women and their partners. I am sure that every hon. Member would agree that that is important as long as choice is exercised on the basis of sound advice and good information and is in the interests and safety of the mother and unborn child.
I am concerned because my local health authority is seeking to replace the excellent maternity units at the Clacton and Harwich hospitals with no more than birthing units. I saw no mention of such units when I studied "Changing Childbirth". I also asked the Library to provide me with some evidence of the work of such units around the country, but it has been unable to supply me with one bit of information. I have no evidence to show how those units have operated, their success or the take-up of their services.
I know that the North East Essex health authority has set up one birthing unit at Halstead, but, in a year, just five people have used it. The take-up at such units is not great, and we need far more information about them.
The community needs to know that the services of the large general hospitals are available if patients need them. In Harwich, all we are asking is that the basic needs of my constituents should be met. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has said, there is always the possibility that specialist treatment may be needed, and it is nice to know that it is available. The maternity unit at Harwich has worked well for many years and has enjoyed good support from constituents, midwives, local GPs and other health professionals.
In my constituency, savings would be made only by withdrawing proper choice. The emphasis of "Changing Childbirth", however, was to give women more choice—for example, by opting for a home birth—and the document discussed the safety of that. The evidence supported women's right to have that choice, but said nothing about removing women's choice for in-patient care at local hospitals. But that is exactly what the change to birthing units is all about.
If local services at Harwich and Clacton hospitals are withdrawn, the only alternatives to a 40-mile round trip to Colchester general hospital is either to opt to have a baby at home or to go into a birthing unit for just a few hours. There is no real choice for those who want to opt for in-patient care.
In the past, the services at Harwich hospital, which is an extremely good community hospital, have been taken up by many women. They all enjoyed the care and comfort provided by the staff.
Among the evidence that I collected from the Library was that given by the Maternity Alliance. One of the problems of my constituency is poverty. Many problems are caused in Harwich and Clacton by homelessness, poor housing, bad transport facilities and lack of car ownership. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree referred to similar problems. That organisation expressed its fears about the new proposals and said:
The Maternity Alliance raised concerns that the reduction in average length of stay post-natally should not be achieved at the expense of the health and well-being of women and their babies.
It highlighted the need for lying-in wards in rural and urban areas for young and single mothers, homeless women, those living in unsuitable accommodation, women with heavy domestic responsibilities and those who had multiple births.
In keeping with the Government's stated commitments to increase choice, every pregnant woman should have the opportunity to receive care in the community or in the hospital of her choice, from the health professionals of her choice, and for as long as she feels necessary. That choice—among other things—has been taken from my constituents at Harwich and Clacton.
In return for putting all my constituents through the pressures and trauma of the review, and in return for removing choice at both hospitals, £37,000 will be saved each year-although, in the first year, only £10,000 will be saved.
Despite all the public meetings, all the opposition, the petition bearing 25,000 signatures—10,000 of which, as the Minister will see, went to the Department of Health—postcard campaigns against the changes, and women marching in the streets with doctors and midwives in front, no notice has been taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree mentioned concerns about consultation. The North East Essex community health council will appeal against the decisions to reduce services on maternity and casualty. It says:
It is also unfortunate that the Authority clearly stated 'the fact that a majority of people may be unhappy with a proposal would not, in itself, be a criterion for a rejection'.
The authority is not listening. Some health authorities are not listening to the people.
During my weeks and months in this place, I have heard the Minister say that the service is not our service or the health authorities service but the people's service. Those people have spoken out—in petitions, in public meetings, in marches and in health authority-organised workshops—and they have not been listened to. They have been put through a traumatic time.
The health authority agrees that we shall have less choice. When it published the proposals, it said:
Drawbacks: There would be no inpatient services at Clacton and Harwich … For some women resident in Clacton and Harwich this means less choice about where they would like to have their babies.
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, women need to know that they are in control, and that their choice has been met. It places more pressure on a woman to be separated from her family—not to have her loved ones near her—at what can be a highly emotional time. The family may be 20 miles away, perhaps without means of transport. In my area, car ownership is low and public transport facilities are poor. There is high unemployment


and much poverty. Family members may be unable to afford to be present for the birth, and if they get there they probably cannot afford to return the 20 miles from Colchester.
I have looked through "Changing Childbirth". Given the way in which it was presented and the investigations that took place in 1991, 1992 and 1993, I urge the Minister to consider how some health authorities are interpreting "Changing Childbirth" to pursue their own agenda. We need to consider that seriously; if we had done so earlier, we might not have had to put the public in my constituency and the Braintree constituency through the experiences to which they have been subjected over the past few months.
In my constituency, the midwifery teams at Harwich and Clacton have made several excellent proposals for retaining the maternity units—such as a proposal to reduce the beds in one unit from six to four—following the guidelines of "Changing Childbirth" and team midwifery. They have gone a long way with that concept, but they still have not been listened to.
The health authority has not listened to the people on the front line; it certainly has not listened to the public; it has not listened to me. I have had the chair and chief executive of North Essex health authority up to visit me in the House several times. Recently, he said to me in the House, "The reason why we are making cuts in your services both in Harwich and Clacton is because they are too good. There is inequity across north-east Essex." As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree said, the sole aim of the consultation appears to be to level down.
As a Government, we should be identifying best practice throughout the country and building on it. We should be paying attention to community hospitals such as those in Harwich and Clacton, building on best practice and praising those people for nurturing the services over the years. They need the praise.
Doctors, nurses and health workers have put a great deal of effort into retaining small community hospitals, but we are putting those people through as much trauma as the public, if not more. They feel very strongly about their local hospitals, and so do the public—they are theirs. As probably happens in all constituencies, in my constituency, charity events are held, the proceeds of which help to buy equipment for the local hospitals. People believe those hospitals are theirs, and they believe that they should be listened to and heard.
I urge the Minister to look at the way in which some health authorities are interpreting the recommendations of "Changing Childbirth", and to try to stop the traumatic things that are going on out there.

Mr. Kerry Pollard: I feel passionately about this subject, but few hon. Members are in the Chamber to discuss it today, and they apparently show a lack of interest in it generally. Also, it is mainly the middle-aged men in grey suits who are here rather than the people who would benefit from midwife-led units—

Mr. David Drew: What about pinstriped suits?

Mr. Pollard: Blue pinstriped suits as well, then.
I want to talk for a second about my credentials. Mine are backed by the highest authority; I have a papal productivity medal, having seven children, and I believe that I could also be classed as a "hero of the Soviet Union", if such a place existed.
I want to focus on the maternity services provided by midwives. Many births are home deliveries, with the baby being delivered by highly trained and dedicated midwives—much the best option for many women. In my family's case, we preferred home deliveries, and four of our babies were born at home. When my daughter Sally was born, my wife was upstairs with the midwife, I was making the tea and the four boys were sitting on the stairs, and it was one of the proudest moments of my life when I could take the new baby and show her to her four brothers and say, "Here's Sally; she's your sister." That was a birth at home, with a midwife whom we all knew and trusted.
Undoubtedly, many women prefer, and some need, the facilities of a large district general hospital, with all the expertise that that involves—in obstetrics and so on—but there is a place for home delivery and, increasingly, for midwife-led maternity units.
Since the formation of the national health service 50 years ago, midwives have delivered 35 million babies and provided care for those babies' mothers. Midwives have made a major contribution in the reduction in maternal and baby mortality rates. The number of women in the United Kingdom who die in labour and the number of babies who die in the first month of life is at an all-time low. We are the envy of the world.
During this time, there have been massive changes in the NHS, major reorganisations and many different professional views about what is right for mother and baby, but the midwives' commitment, adaptability and high level of skill have remained consistent throughout.
The present Government believe—as did the previous one—that a woman has the right to choose her carer during pregnancy. The 1911 National Insurance Bill was amended to provide that the mother shall decide whether she will be attended by a medical practitioner or a certified midwife and shall have free choice in such selection. Today mothers throughout the country are choosing to have midwife-only care at midwife-led units—especially when their childbirth is likely to be normal—and to use the skills of obstetricians and their medical colleagues only when there is a perceived risk. I want to give two examples of units: first, the midwife-led unit at Royal Bournemouth general hospital; secondly, the Edgware birth centre.
In the first example, a study compared the level of care and service satisfaction at Poole hospital with that at the midwife-led unit at Royal Bournemouth general hospital. It concluded that there was some difference in the care received but little difference in the outcome for either mother or baby. The study found that the general hospital births were more likely to involve higher rates of induction and greater use of anaesthesia—particularly pethidine and epidurals—whereas Bournemouth babies were more likely to be born in a birthing pool. It also found that there was very little difference in the care provided for low birth weight babies and those requiring special post-natal treatment—a satisfactory outcome for the midwife-led maternity unit.
The second example, the Edgware birth centre, is a relatively new unit, which came into being as a result of the closure of Edgware hospital as a district general hospital. The unit is funded completely by the Department of Health, so it does not impact on the budgets of the local health authority or trust. The unit opened on 1 September 1987 and cost £84,000. It comprises five rooms, each with its own en-suite shower, and one room with a plumbed-in birthing pool.
Initial interest in the unit among the local population has been high—indeed, more than 100 visits have been requested by local pregnant women. A survey of local women found that 61.6 per cent. would like to deliver in a stand-alone midwife-led unit at Edgware. The most common reasons given for that decision were proximity to home of the place of delivery and confidence in midwives. The Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Midwives support the concept of midwife-led units and believe that the unit at Edgware is "safe".
In 1996, The Lancet published a study that concluded that women who received midwife-led care exclusively were less likely to be given labour-inducing drugs; less likely to be given an episiotomy but no more likely to have a perineal tear; and were less likely to have interventions. The NHS spends £1.1 billion on maternity care. If midwife-led units of sufficient size could be developed—and retained, bearing in mind the earlier comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst)—money could be saved and targeted to those women who need specialist care and the life-saving services of an obstetrician. More money might also be released for general NHS use—perhaps it could be devoted to reducing waiting lists.
I pay tribute to all the midwives in my constituency of St. Albans, who do a brilliant job. My good friend Ita McCracken, who is a sister midwife at our local antenatal clinic, recently went with a group of other local midwives to visit Heatherwood hospital in Ascot, which has a midwife-led unit. They found that mothers and staff were very satisfied with the unit. Staff morale was high, as was staff retention. One mother said, "We are special here; it's like going from home to home." They also believe that the unit is cost-effective.
The previous Government set a target that, by November 1998, 70 per cent. of mothers would know their midwives. In my area, that figure is only 30 per cent., and I believe that a low-risk maternity unit would redress the balance. Staff at a midwife-led maternity unit would have easier access to their clients and families. Such a unit would form part of community services, readily involving the various agencies and professional bodies and working towards improving maternity care.
There is wide support for a midwife-led maternity unit in St. Albans. I have met various trusts and the health authority to further that cause and I am confident that, before long, we shall have our own midwife-led unit in St. Albans.

Ms Rachel Squire: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for his excellent speech and for securing this Adjournment debate. He covered many of the points that I wished to draw to the attention of the House. I join other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate in praising midwives, in particular.
The provision of maternity services in the national health service is of great interest to many—if not the majority—of our constituents. However, their interests, views and voices are often ignored by the current system of decision making in the health service, which is conducted by unelected and unaccountable health authorities in England and Wales and by health boards in Scotland. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree also apply north of the border. In 1991–92, 33,000 people in Dunfermline and west Fife signed a petition seeking to keep their local maternity hospital, or at least retain a maternity ward in the new hospital. Their views were ignored. Even though a new hospital opened in 1993—the same year the maternity hospital closed—with a specially built and equipped maternity ward, it has been allowed to gather dust ever since because of the decision to centralise services at one town in Fife.
My hon. Friend said that health authorities carry out strategic reviews and call them "health initiatives". That also sounds horribly familiar. As part of its integrated care strategy, Fife health board has suggested turning the specially equipped maternity ward at the Queen Margaret hospital into a grannies ward for long-term care of the elderly. It proposes to spend millions of pounds more on centralising the service further, despite community views to the contrary.
It is claimed that centralisation is cost-efficient. We must question whether it is cost-efficient to leave a specially built and equipped ward empty and spend millions of pounds transferring services to another hospital. Mention has been made of poorer communities and transport difficulties. The closure of maternity services at Dunfermline has hit hardest the villages of west Fife, which are some of the poorest communities. The bus service in the area runs only once every two hours—and babies are not known for synchronising their arrival to fit in with the bus timetable. Many people in those communities cannot afford the bus fare for one journey to the hospital. The Government must tackle the problem of power without accountability. We must provide locally based maternity services.
The issue of the NHS complaints procedure was raised with me in respect of maternity services, but I believe that the same points are relevant across the board. Tragically, some parents still experience the death of a baby, and some babies are born with disabilities. In recent months, more than 50 families from all over Fife have contacted me to express their concerns about the medical intervention that took place during the birth of their child and the treatment that they received when they started asking questions. As a result of pressure and publicity, an independent review panel was set up and it is about to produce its report. Therefore, I shall not question the objectivity of the panel or anticipate its findings.
I speak for parents when I say that the NHS complaints procedure does not allow them a proper say. For some time, it has not allowed them to speak directly to the independent review panel, and parents feel that it is difficult for them to put on paper the trauma of what they went through. I emphasise that in no way do I denigrate the excellent services that are provided by maternity and other staff in Fife in delivering thousands of babies. Despite changes and improvements, the NHS complaints procedure still fails to give a strong voice to the few, but important, people who suffer tragedy or trauma in our


health service. I hope that that will be addressed by the Government, especially in terms of questioning medical accountability.
Once again, I place on record my praise for the thousands of health service staff, especially midwives. Throughout the country they bring great happiness to people. I hope that the Government can ensure that those who provide such an excellent service and the families who seek such a service will have a greater voice in making decisions on the future of our maternity services.

Mr. David Drew: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on initiating the debate. I also congratulate all those who have participated. The debate is fortuitous because the maternity hospital in my constituency is under threat of closure, and it is useful to be able to speak about that. However, I shall not engage in special pleading; the current review is right and proper, although many of us feel that we know the answer. I hope that the hospital's future will be assured.
The review is part of Gloucestershire health authority's strategic review, and plans for the hospital form one of the few firm proposals in it. The idea is that closing the Stroud maternity unit will save about £150,000 from a budget of £248 million. I hope that hon. Members will agree that that is a drop in the ocean. Much support has already been garnered by local people who are organising a campaign to keep the hospital open. On Stroud's streets on Saturday one could not fail to bump into people who had either signed a petition or were about to sign it. People were taking car stickers and offering what help they could. That is a tribute to the strength of support for the hospital. The local newspaper, The Stroud News and Journal, and the National Childbirth Trust have engaged in a well-organised and, I hope, successful campaign—if one judges it by the many letters that I have received.
There is an emotional spasm when there is any proposal for closure in the NHS. It is usually opposed and there is support for the facility which may not have been apparent before. Our debate is about much more than that. As hon. Members have said, people are voicing their concerns and arguing for choice, which is what the debate is about. It is especially about choice for women, but other issues need to be highlighted. There is a perennial battle in the national health service between high-tech and low-tech. Consultants tend to favour delivering babies in large general hospitals, which is against the wishes of GPs and other professionals such as midwives. I wish that that did not happen, but that is part of the real world.
As we wrestle with trying to form a new NHS using the White Paper and, I hope, the Bill that will follow, those matters are at the root of the dilemma that faces us. We cannot underestimate the importance of patient choice. We must listen to not just women but men. I declare an interest because my wife had one child, Christopher, in the maternity unit at Stroud, and another, Esther, was delivered at home with the help of community midwives. I can vouch for the excellent care, support, advice and other assistance that were given by the teams who worked to the best of their ability.
I shall fill in some details without elaborating, so that the review can take its natural course. It is important to give some of the history of the problems that have been

mentioned in the debate. The Stroud unit opened in 1953, which is some time ago, on the site of the current hospital, which dates back to 1875. The unit must not be considered in isolation. It is an important part of a complex of services in the community hospital. It has a unit for in-patients and has consultant out-patient services on the site. There is an elderly persons unit for those who suffer mental health problems. The accommodation for elderly persons has been moved from another unit to the community hospital in Stroud, and it is sad that we now face the closure of a key part of the complex.
There was major refurbishment of the maternity hospital in 1993 at a cost of £140,000. It was reopened by Dr. Mark Porter, who I am sure is known to some hon. Members as the television doctor. The refurbishment was part of an upgrade at the hospital and was partly undertaken as recompense for the loss of the Berkeley maternity unit in the south of my constituency. At that time, we were assured that that would be the end to the so-called cuts and that community provision would continue at Stroud for ever and a day. Now we are faced with closure. History teaches some lessons and returns us to issues that we faced before.
The maternity unit is now run by community midwives with GP support and that has been done by agreement. My GP friends assure me that delivering babies is not a skill for irregular practice, and say that they were more than happy when the community midwives took on the major part of running the service. The hospital unit employs 21.53 whole-time equivalent midwives, 6.24 unqualified staff and one administrative and clerical person. It employs a considerable number of people because it delivers the range of services and provides 24-hour cover.
It is important to appreciate that a nine-bed unit can offer not just intra-partum care, which I understand is labour and delivery, but antenatal and post-natal care. Women are offered an informed choice on place of delivery, and the options available are to give birth at one of the two district general hospitals at Cheltenham and Gloucester, or at Stroud, or to have a home birth.
In July 1997, the midwifery-led service took over completely. It has tried to keep to the letter of the report "Changing Childbirth" so that, wherever possible, women have a named midwife and the service is open to all. I know that consultants have the authority to recommend, certainly with the first born, that the birth take place in the district general hospital. However, one of the great benefits of the unit in Stroud is that, after the birth, women can come back to that community unit. That should not be underestimated.
An integrated midwifery model of care is in operation, with midwives having both a hospital and a community role. The midwives work in teams and provide 24-hour cover. Two peripheral consultant clinics are held at the maternity unit by visiting consultants from Gloucester and ultrasound scanning facilities are offered on the general hospital site.
Parentcraft education is offered in homes, hospitals, health centres and surgeries and there are day and evening sessions. My fear would be the loss of that service. It could be seen as an easy way of making genuine cuts and such advice could be reduced or removed completely.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the substantial additional


funds that the Government are making available in the NHS, perhaps the first priority should be a freeze on the cuts in the pipeline from the previous Government? They are causing damage to the NHS in all our constituencies.

Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend but, as I have said, it is right that the review takes place. It should take place against the background of trying to improve—the aims are mentioned in the White Paper—community-based provision and primary-led care. Some of the so-called reviews seem to be going in the opposite direction.
There was some disappointment that, until recently, there was a decline in the number of births at Stroud. I am pleased to say that, with the new approach of midwives taking the lead, that has turned around. Between December 1996 and March 1997, there were 67 deliveries in the hospital, but it is expected that the figure until March this year will be 118. That is a significant increase. One of the good things to come out of the campaign is that it will emphasise that this service is available, and it is hoped that more women will make use of it.
Home confinements are on the increase. Between April and September 1996 there were seven home births, and between April and September 1997 there were 15. If women do not have the choice of a local community facility, I am sure that many more of them will want home births. I understand that that is more expensive. However, having had one of my children at home, I think that it is important, to offer that service.
A 24-hour advisory service is in operation and, during the past year, some 1,244 advice calls were taken. That is important, because people trust the service when it is provided locally. They may know the person giving the advice in a community such as Stroud. That service has now been extended to the forest of Dean.
The breastfeeding rate is 71 per cent. at discharge. I understand that that is substantially higher than the national average. There are many day cases, including foetal monitoring and assessment of women for spontaneous rupture of membranes, blood pressure checks, anti-D prophylaxis and early labour. In early labour, women may feel that they need a local facility. There may be more problems if such a service is available only at the district general hospital.
The average length of stay is 2.6 days. Good local provision is important for access. The arguments about poverty and access were rehearsed a week ago, but were re-rehearsed today by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree. It is much easier to reach a local facility than the district general hospital in Gloucester or Cheltenham. More particularly, if the service is well provided locally, I believe that women will stay in hospital for a shorter time. Therefore, there is an inherent reduction in cost. If there is no choice and women have to go to the district general hospital, they may have to stay longer.
Thankfully, in 1996 and 1997, the rate for stillbirths, perinatal mortality and maternal deaths was nil. As has been mentioned many times, I am sure that that is due to the overall success of maternity services within the NHS. Long may that continue. I hope that we do not see any deterioration.
In January this year, there was a major investigation, through the district auditor, of the facilities available at Stroud. It looked at the scope and approach of the service

at Stroud, including the management and organisation, antenatal care, intra-partum care, post-natal care and the relationship with local GPs. The key findings were interesting. The report said that it was an effective woman-centred service, incorporating a high level of continuity of care and experienced midwives providing an integrated service between hospital and community setting. It also said that there were effective liaison arrangements with Gloucestershire Royal NHS trust—our major local district general hospital—to ensure that women who delivered there and moved to the Stroud unit received seamless care. It said that there was a good-quality maternity service at average cost. It is not more expensive. We are talking not about cost savings, but about a service that can be efficient and practicable.
There were many good examples of how the service was being operated to good effect. The only other key issue was the need to raise the figure for bed occupancy, which is currently about 50 per cent and rising. However, it needs to be higher. That is all part and parcel of getting the message across that community-based maternity units have a role to play, can do the job well and are the popular choice if people have confidence in them. I hope that people in the medical profession will try to get the message across.
An action plan looked at ways in which services could be improved and expanded. We have heard today about other similar cases, but I think that Stroud is as good an example as any we have heard about.
I should like to mention the problem caused by a split trust—an acute trust and a community trust—which is the position in the western part of Gloucestershire. The community maternity unit is within the community trust, whereas the acute trust is responsible for the district general hospital. There is always a temptation to suck money towards the acute end. I know that the Government are aware of that. That is why they have placed the onus on a primary care-led approach. It is important to understand that the salami-like cuts end up helping the acute end, but that the money has to come from somewhere. It often comes from the community end, which is completely contrary to what people want; they want choice in the local community.
I hope that, as part of this debate, we have managed to get the point across about the importance of choice. We are not talking about a more expensive service. We are talking about the service that people want in their local community and about understanding that, as we reform the NHS, people have the right to say what type of service they want. I therefore hope that the maternity units in Stroud and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends will continue.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I wish that time would allow me to deal in more detail with the six excellent contributions that have been made in the debate, but it is in the nature of these short debates that that is impossible. However, it would be remiss of me not to thank the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for giving us the opportunity to talk about this subject. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) thought that the Chamber was not well attended. Compared with other attendances that I have seen over the years, it is not bad.
The quality of the speeches has shown what an important subject this is. If I may sum up his views in this way, the hon. Member for Braintree was concerned


that, because of present trends towards rationalisation, precisely those people who particularly need choice—those who live in remoter rural areas or who come from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds—might be deprived of choice. He rightly started off with what was, in a sense, the turning point of the wider debate: the report in February 1992 of the Select Committee on Health.
It is probably rare for a Select Committee report to change the way in which things are done to quite the extent that that report did. Any of us who visited maternity hospitals in the 1970s will have got the impression that the process was done to, rather than for, the woman. At times, one almost got the impression that some doctors were induction-happy, saying, "We are going to throw the switch now. You are going to have your child at this very moment." I perhaps exaggerate to make a point, but, in recent years, the atmosphere in maternity hospitals that I have visited is certainly different from that in the 1970s.
The hon. Member for Braintree rightly warned us against jargon. I dislike it as well, but it is useful shorthand to say that the Select Committee report wanted a "woman-centred" approach. That must be right. That is the key difference between the process before the report and the process afterwards.
I shall not go through the recommendations of the Select Committee in any great detail, but may I briefly mention four of the broad principles behind its recommendations? It recognised that the relationship between the woman and her care givers was of fundamental importance; that women needing intensive obstetric care in the NHS should also be able to enjoy continuity of care and carer, so far as that was possible; that, within a hospital, women should be able to exercise choice as to the personnel who would be responsible for their care; and, perhaps most important, that the woman having a baby should be seen as the focus of care, and that the professionals providing that care should identify her needs and develop arrangements to meet them that were based on full and equal co-operation among all those charged with her care.
Those were the key findings. As a result, the Select Committee was able to make several recommendations: that midwifery-managed maternity units should be developed; that practice in hospital delivery units should be changed to enable women to feel at home and to be in charge of their labour; that working practices should be changed to enable midwives to have their own case loads and to take full responsibility for the women for whom they cared; and that a duty should be placed on all general practitioner practices to enable women to have a home birth, if that is what they wanted.
In due course, as we know, the Government of the day published a report entitled "Changing Childbirth", which accepted the thrust of the Select Committee report. Again, if time allowed, which it does not, I would go through some of the particular ideas and recommendations, but, in accepting the Select Committee report, the then Government had it in mind that the woman should be at the centre of the process. She should be the person who was in charge and, so far as possible, in the driving seat, with home deliveries available to her.
It is interesting to note how the policy has developed over the years. To some extent, the evidence is anecdotal. Hon. Members have talked about "rationalisation", which is probably the kindest way to put it. The effect of rationalisation is to transfer maternity services away from the area where people live. Far from bringing the possibility of a home delivery closer, rationalisation means that the hospital where women are going to have their baby is much further away. Obviously, that is not in any shape or form within the spirit of what the Select Committee or, for that matter, the then Government had in mind.
It is interesting to consider the extent to which the aspirations of the Select Committee—and, I think, of all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate—have been fulfilled. In recent times, several reports have been published. I shall not go through those in any great length, but it is probably true to say that, subject to one or two caveats, the consensus seems to be that the process has worked and that making home births available has worked.
I mention three reports that I have spotted; the Minister may want to say something about the generality of the point, if not comment on its detail. In 1997, the Policy Studies Institute produced a document entitled "A leading role for midwives?". It expressed some reservations about the emphasis on the shift to midwife-led care. The report was based on three pilot "Changing Childbirth" projects. It suggested that, although there were undoubted benefits to both women and midwives in midwife-led care, it was important not to jeopardise good working relations between midwives and the medical profession. It said that the higher costs of providing such a service should not be overlooked.
The Audit Commission produced two interesting documents. One was entitled "First class delivery: improving maternity services in England and Wales". It suggested that there were considerable variations in patterns of care, which could not be explained by differences in "case mix" or local circumstances. Fragmentation of service delivery was highlighted as a problem, as was the issue of conflict between providing "women-centred" care and meeting other NHS service objectives such as increased efficiency.
There was a follow-up to that report, entitled "First class delivery:"—the puns are inevitably to be found—"a national survey of women's views of maternity care". It discussed the experiences of 2,400 women in pregnancy, birth and post-natal care. One part of the report focused on how women felt they were treated by their care givers, with between 50 and 60 per cent. of women "strongly agreeing" that they were
treated well as a person
during pregnancy, birth and post-natal care, and most of the remainder "tending" to agree. The authors suggested:
depending on how you look at them, these results are either encouraging because the majority of women agree that care was good, or worrying because only just over half the respondents were able to agree strongly with the statements".
Inevitably, in medicine as in other things, fashion has a part to play. There is no doubt that the fashion was—rightly, in my view—for women to be able to make an informed choice, after taking medical opinion, on where they would have their child. Inevitably, pendulums tend to swing one way and the other. In his winding-up speech,


the Minister may say a word or two about whether that pendulum has swung too far. If there is solid and substantial evidence that the levels of mortality and, shall I say more loosely, of complication are much higher with home births, this will be as good an opportunity as any to discover that.
I end on this point because I am anxious to give the Minister as much time as possible to respond. It involves the key part of this debate. I dislike pinching clichés from my opponents but, if they are good clichés, why not? The whole point about the national health service is that it is not owned by consultants or politicians; it is a service for the people. Ownership of that service is vital.
Being the key player in an essentially natural operation—child birth—is not the same as being ill. Yes, medical opinion and expertise have their place, but they should start from the position that this is a normal, joyful experience, where the woman is the person who is calling the shots. In 1992, the entire emphasis was changed to ensure that that was exactly what happened. I hope that we will not hear from the Minister that he detects that there has been any backsliding in the system because of that change in emphasis.
Although the Minister will already have noted it, I draw to his attention the point that so many Labour Members have already made with some eloquence: rationalisation, even if done for very good medical reasons, can deprive people of the choice that all hon. Members want them to have.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): Ownership of the national health service is indeed important, which is why the Government and Labour Members have reclaimed it for the people. We need absolutely no lessons from Conservative Members on the importance of ensuring that people own the service. I make no apology for introducing a note of party political acrimony into this debate.
We have heard from one Labour Member after another, and from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), of the importance of ensuring that consultation within the NHS is real consultation. We owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for ensuring that today hon. Members have had an opportunity to speak about the various consultative processes that are occurring in their constituencies and to make the points that have to be made about the value that their constituents attach to maternity services.
Importantly—I do not want to be parochial about the subject—this debate has enabled hon. Members to consider their constituencies within the context of the wider issues raised in delivering an effective and caring maternity service. Those opportunities are the true value of Wednesday morning Adjournment debates, which enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to speak to the issues and to increase our knowledge and engagement in the subject.
Some important points have been made in the debate and, in the short time that remains to me, I should like to deal with as many as I can. Unfortunately, I shall not be able to give hon. Members who are participating in a consultative process in their own constituency—whether it is in Essex or in Gloucestershire—the satisfaction that

they would like by acceding to their specific perspective, which they undoubtedly hold sincerely and profoundly. They will know that, as consultative processes are coming to fruition, it is not appropriate for Ministers to comment in detail or to express a view either for or against specific proposals, because those matters may eventually come to Ministers for a decision.
I can promise all hon. Members—I am conscious that my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) have a specific interest in the outcome of the current consultation in Essex—that the NHS in the hands of a Labour Government is a people's NHS, and that it holds a very different view on consultation from that which held sway under the previous Government. Hon. Members know only too well from our own experience what consultation in the NHS was like under that Government: the passage of a prescribed time before a predetermined conclusion was affirmed and implemented. That is what it was, but that is no longer what it is.
I promise my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and for Harwich—and, should the circumstances arise, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—that, if Ministers are called on to make decisions on maternity services, we will take on board all the points that are made and consider all the information presented to us in the light of the principles that we all share and that have been endorsed on both sides of the House.
I should like, without using too much time, to consider the current position of midwifery and maternity services, in which considerable gains have been made since the inception of the NHS. We owe a debt of gratitude to the dedicated midwives and clinicians working in maternity care for delivering a first-class service. In the past 50 years, since the NHS was founded, the rate of maternal deaths has been decreasing, demonstrating the high standard of antenatal care provided. At 5.5 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies, the rate is the lowest ever.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—who speaks for the Opposition with a considerable interest in and commitment on the subject—made an interesting point on the satisfaction with, and effectiveness of, midwifery care. The point was dealt with in an Audit Commission report published last year, which showed that the vast majority of women were happy with the antenatal care that they received. About 90 per cent. of them expressed happiness with midwifery care, and about 80 per cent. were satisfied with their medical care. We need to take on board that important message.
Important points have been made in this debate by Labour Members and by the hon. Member for Richmond Park—who, based on her own professional practice, speaks on the matter for the Liberal Democrats with considerable knowledge and experience—on the importance of the role of midwives and, significantly, on the need to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of properly trained midwives.
The Government—with the issues of effective recruitment and retention very much in mind—addressed the issue of additional funding. In the 1997–98 allocation, we made £350,000 of additional funding available for each region, to boost nurse recruitment and retention and to help nurses on career breaks go back to work. Last October, we made additional allocations for a publicity campaign to promote those objectives.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) made an important speech—to which I shall reply shortly—and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Mc Walter) made an effective intervention. I should like to draw their attention to the work of the Barnet and Hertfordshire education consortium, which has sponsored a specific "return to health care scheme"—to which 61 nurses and midwives responded in person or by post, resulting in the commissioning of a "return to midwifery practice" course at the university of Luton which started last October. That is the type of initiative that we want to develop. We take on board also the points that have been made by hon. Members on the need to spread good practice. Good practice is obviously the key, and we cannot afford to be complacent.
The Edgware development was mentioned in a detailed and, I thought, important speech by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans. It is the Department's intention to pilot the development at Edgware hospital for two years and to ensure that there is an independent evaluation which we can then use to generate best practice elsewhere.
We know that there is good work being done out there—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We now come to the next debate.

A21 (Kent)

Mr. Archie Norman: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the acute problem of the A21 main trunk road, which connects the M25 with Hastings.
I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), for attending the debate. I am fully aware that there has already been a series of Adjournment debates on various roads; it must seem at times that every Member of Parliament has a particular road project that he wishes to pursue. I admire the Minister's patience and tenacity in sitting through every debate and repeating time and again her mantra about the Government's roads policy and their integrated transport strategy. I have studied carefully the roads review documents and the Minister's remarks made in previous debates. I am grateful to the Minister for Roads, Baroness Hayman, for her feedback on the consultation process on the south-eastern roads review. I shall come to that in a moment.
The point of this debate is to highlight the acute anxiety felt in Kent and East Sussex about the state of the A21. This is not a new issue, but one of long standing. It is a matter of importance every day for my constituents and those of colleagues who have to sit gridlocked in traffic because the improvement to the road, which has widespread support across the south-east, has not been implemented.
The improvement to the A21 is not a new proposal. There was a public inquiry in 1992, and various projects have been prepared over the past 20 years. Indeed, the improvement proposal had been brought to a state of readiness for implementation before the roads review was announced. If the House will excuse the expression, the proposal was kicked into the long grass as a result of the roads review, and has been a victim of the consultation process. I am not contesting whether or not we need a roads review, but the simple fact is that the A21 has not been improved because of that time-consuming process.
It is important to recognise that we are talking not about a new road but about improving the existing one. At the moment, there is an hour-glass effect on the A21—in other words, the initial stretch from the M25 has been dualled, as has the stretch past Pembury, but the piece at Castle Hill is still a single lane, which creates a dreadful bottleneck.

Sir John Stanley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, of all the sections of the improvement scheme along the A21, the one that would yield the greatest single cost benefit and the one which should be proceeded with on its own if necessary, is precisely the one to which he has referred—the completion of the dualling between the end of the Tonbridge bypass and the Pembury bypass? Without that, the whole of the triangle formed by Pembury, Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge will remain more or less a permanent traffic jam during the day.

Mr. Norman: I entirely share my right hon. Friend's view. The economic argument for improving the Castle Hill stretch is overwhelming, and I shall mention that again in a moment.
What we are seeking from the Minister is not a recitation of the arguments about the roads review but reassurance that the facts about the A21 are being fully taken on board and that, subject to the outcome of the review, there will be no further delay in taking action.
The Minister has outlined the new criteria for the roads review, and I want to show that the A21 improvement programme meets those criteria fully. It commands virtually universal support from individuals and organisations in the south-east, including Kent county council, East Sussex county council, Hastings council, Tunbridge Wells borough council, Kent police, Kent ambulance service, Pembury local parish council, which is most affected by the Castle Hill stretch of the road, the West Kent chamber of commerce, the Freight Transport Association, all the hon. Members—I believe—with constituents living along the route, and the vast majority of my constituents in Tunbridge Wells. In other words, this is a relatively non-contentious road proposal, if there ever is such a thing.
Incidentally, the A21 improvement scheme came out extremely well from the initial feedback from the roads review, as reported to us by the Minister for Roads. As we understand it, not only is the Castle Hill stretch seen as a priority today, but the Lamberhurst route will be an important route for decongestion purposes later.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: East Sussex county council also considers the scheme to be part of a strategic integrated transport system. If the improvements are not made, things will become even worse than they are now.

Mr. Norman: I share my right hon. Friend's views. He makes an important point, which shows that the proposal meets entirely the requirements of integration, which is one of the important criteria set out in the trunk roads review.
I deal now with the criteria that I understand are being applied, quite reasonably, to new trunk roads project. They are accessibility, safety, economy, the environment and integration.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Before my hon. Friend goes into those details, does he accept that what he says about the A21 in Kent applies with equal force to its southern reaches in East Sussex, especially between Flimwell and the bottom of Silver Hill, and also between the southern end of the Robertsbridge bypass and the intended junction with the proposed Hastings eastern and Hastings western and Bexhill bypasses? I am sure that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) will confirm that.
I think that my hon. Friend will understand why I tell many of my constituents who are exasperated by the blockages on the A21 that the probable reason that Harold lost the battle of Hastings was that he was held up on the A21.

Mr. Norman: I concur and sympathise entirely with my hon. Friend. The A21 is the only viable route to many parts of the constituency, areas to the south and, of course, Hastings.
One of the criteria of the roads review is accessibility. Congestion is acute. The superintendent of Kent police tells me:
The Castle Hill section of the A21 is a nightmare. It add at least 25 minutes to the journey into Tunbridge Wells. Police movement, despite the assistance of sirens, is inhibited by the current situation.
That is clearly unacceptable.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The time problem is one that my constituents regularly bring to my attention. In fact, business movements from Hastings to the M25 are increased by some 25 minutes, the very figure to which hon. Gentleman referred. As a consequence, not only are companies now saying that they will not come to Hastings, but many leading companies are saying that they will leave the town, thus adding to the existing deprivation.

Mr. Norman: It is important to remember that Hastings, unusually for a town in the south-east, is a relatively deprived area, with unemployment running at, I believe, about 10 per cent.
On safety grounds, the case for improvements to the A21 is overwhelming. There have been 227 accidents—serious accidents, I believe—on the relevant stretch of the A21 in the past five years. The current cost-benefit analysis apparently suggests that the road is costing £24 million a year in safety problems and delays, although I appreciate that the COBA criteria are being flexed. I understand that they will be changed to take into account environmental costs.
In environmental terms, the project is relatively benign. In fact, there are substantial environmental gains to be had from improving the route, not least in Lamberhurst, a village in a conservation area which is seriously blighted by the volume of heavy traffic flowing through it.
The environmental situation in Lamberhurst is serious. Milk rounds have to be specially scheduled and postal deliveries rearranged because it is unsafe to deliver milk or post at certain times of day. The head teacher of Lamberhurst primary school tells me:
Frequently at school medicals the children are unable to respond to hearing tests because of the level of traffic noise. I am seriously concerned for the safety and health of the pupils of my school, which borders the A21.
The public inquiry of 1992—traffic has increased since then—concluded:
Carbon monoxide concentrations at those properties in Lamberhurst close to the A21 were at peak hours just above the threshold which would trigger the requirement for a special air quality report. A bypass would decrease these concentrations by about half.
There are strong environmental reasons for improving the route.
The scheme fits into the East Sussex plan, the West Kent plan and the local plan for the economy. Tunbridge Wells council informs me that there are six commercial developments, mostly at the Longfield road site adjacent to the A21, for which planning permission is being held up because of the uncertainty about the road. Economic development is being retarded because of that uncertainty. Everybody in the area expected the scheme to be going ahead at the time of the Wealden Down design, build, finance and operate agreement.
The scheme fits in with the integrated transport strategy for Tunbridge Wells. The park and ride site identified at Woodgate corner is just off the A21. It also ties in with the new hospital project under preparation. Access to the Pembury site is off the A21 and is affected by the congestion problems that I have referred to.
The managing director of AIM Plastics, a local Tunbridge Wells business, says:
I truly believe the frustrating bottleneck will become a real limitation on the commercial development of the town. Companies like mine will very soon move away rather than waste our time in a daily unavoidable traffic jam.
That is a clear illustration that the road improvement will affect economic development in Tunbridge Wells, which some may call a relatively prosperous town, and in Hastings, which is a relatively deprived town on the south coast.
Using the Minister's criteria, the proposal is relatively uncontentious. It should have gone ahead already, although we understand why that was not possible. We are not asking for another roads review—I trust that the Minister will not tax our patience by explaining the integrated transport policy yet again; we have studied and understood. We want reassurances, subject to the outcome of the roads review. We fully appreciate that the Minister cannot pre-empt the outcome of the roads review.
Will the Minister give us some idea of when the roads review will be published? We understand from Baroness Hayman that it will be during the time when the daffodils are out. Daffodils come out early in Tunbridge Wells, and we have had a mild winter. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the daffodils will be out before May?
May we be assured that, once the roads review is published, no time will be wasted in developing priority projects—of which this is one—to be proceeded with? We do not want to hear that the roads review has precipitated another review of what the priority projects should be. If the criteria are properly applied, will we be able to move ahead with the project?
Will the Minister be prepared to consider the project pragmatically and, if necessary, incrementally? If there are specific problems of timing or public expenditure, it would be better to proceed with parts of the de-bottlenecking than to wait many years until a massive project can be put together. We would rather pursue the project incrementally over the years, with a bit now and a bit later, than have nothing for many years.
Will the Minister reassure us that she is fully aware of the extent of the problem, of the acute anxiety and distress that it is causing in Tunbridge Wells and of the damage to property and injuries to people? One constituent had a juggernaut in his front room last October. That was the third such incident. I am pleased to report that it was a Somerfield lorry.
We want reassurances that, subject to the criteria that have been set out and subject to the roads review, the acute problems suffered by my constituents and those of other hon. Members present will be heard. We want to move not from review to review, but from review to action.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): If I had not been aware of the acuteness of the problem before the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) spoke, I certainly would be now, not only because of his detailed and informative speech, but from the presence of other hon. Members on both sides of the House who regard the issue as particularly important for their constituencies. I congratulate him, and thank him for his generosity in allowing interventions from the right hon. Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster).
I suggest to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that, if the archer had become bored by the delay, Harold might have won the battle. I say to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells that the Government would be irresponsible to time a review on an issue as important as our roads and an integrated transport strategy on the appearance, disappearance or non-appearance of daffodils. The climate in this country is such that they may be flourishing in February and flat on their backs dead at the beginning of March.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for raising the topic and for his generous concerns about my appearance at the Dispatch Box. As he rightly says, every hon. Member has a road for which they want to argue. That is right and proper. I am sorry that he regards the Government's pronouncements on why we have a roads review and why we have taken such pains to consult on an integrated transport strategy as a mantra. I know that I have talked about it many times, but, as it is the structure within which we are approaching the problems, it is worth repeating.
Our decisions have to be put into a wider policy context. The hon. Gentleman should be particularly aware of the importance to the economy and to the quality of our life of good communications. He must also be aware of the backdrop against which the Government are approaching the issues. Forecasts published last autumn predicted a nearly 40 per cent. increase in traffic over the next 20 years. If current policies continue unchanged, congestion will get worse, with an even more severe impact on our environment. Those who have no access to private transport will find it even more difficult to get around.
We need to develop an integrated transport system that makes the best use of each mode, ensuring that all options are considered on a basis that is fair—and, even more important, is seen to be fair—and takes into account from the outset considerations of accessibility, integration, safety, the environment and the economy. All those issues have been raised today, with direct relevance to Tunbridge Wells and the other constituencies that have been referred to.
Above all, an integrated transport system must be sustainable. One of the encouraging aspects of what we acknowledge is an ambitious task is the consensus on the need for change. We cannot achieve our aims in isolation. We are actively engaging those involved in transport, with a wide range of external advice and expertise. Local authorities, businesses, trade unions, transport professionals and transport users are involved in our work.
That is the context of the roads review—examining the role that trunk roads should play in an integrated and sustainable transport policy. Against that background, we have three broad options for our roads: first, to make better use of infrastructure; secondly, to manage demand; thirdly, to provide new infrastructure.
To make the best use of infrastructure is the obvious first choice. The infrastructure has been provided at substantial financial and environmental cost, and we must make the best use of the investment. My noble Friend the Minister for Roads recently launched the Highways Agency toolkit of a selection of techniques and ideas for making better use of our trunk road network as part of an integrated transport system. Technologies old and new can help to make better use of our roads network, but, realistically, there is a limit to the benefits to be gained simply from using such techniques, which means that we must also look seriously at other, harder options, such as managing demand and providing new infrastructure.
The management of demand is a vast topic, encompassing reducing the need to travel—by land use planning, for example—an assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes can be encouraged, and inevitably, the question of controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms. Many local authorities are seeking by means of integrated transport packages to combine demand management and other measures so that mobility is maintained, but the adverse consequences of it are reduced. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells referred to the steps that his local authority is taking in that area.

Mr. Norman: I understand the Minister's points. We have of course heard them many times before. We fully appreciate that they are part of the script. The proposed A21 improvement is part of an integrated transport policy, fits the park and ride scheme and uses existing roads. We are simply saying, "Let us improve the road we have." The proposed scheme is highly economic and fits with the criteria that she has described.

Ms Jackson: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's points; he is reiterating what he said earlier. Essentially, he is asking for a specific decision now on one specific road. I am sure that he accepts that, given the complexity of the problem with which the Government are faced, it would be wrong simply to dismiss an entire consultation process that has been engaged throughout the United Kingdom. We have to make a change. We have to devise an integrated transport strategy that can meet the transport and traffic needs of this country and its people—for not only the short term but the medium and long term.

Mr. Norman: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for repeating myself again. We are not asking for a specific outcome of the roads review now. We are asking for a reassurance that, as soon as the roads review is complete, and if, as we expect, it is proven that the A21 scheme fits the criteria, we will be able to move rapidly to a stage where a project can be drawn up and put forward. Are we instead to be faced with another series of delays and reviews?

Ms Jackson: I make no criticism of the hon. Gentleman repeating himself. I am about to do precisely

the same. There is little point in asking for the conclusions of a review until that review has been completed. That, in essence, is what I believe he is asking for.
To return to policy rather than script, in the local transport settlement that was announced in December by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, I was particularly pleased that the Government were able to continue to support Kent county council's transport package for Tunbridge Wells, and provide increased support for packages for Maidstone, Ashford and Canterbury. All those packages will help to alleviate congestion. The Government also provided a special allocation of supplementary credit approvals to be targeted on measures designed to improve public transport, cycling, walking and traffic calming in Dartford and Gravesend.
Providing new infrastructure is a very difficult option, both financially and given the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we will not proceed with major new road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does it follow that, if my hon. Friend is satisfied that there is no alternative, approval is given? The feeling in my constituency is that there is no alternative, no rail link—unless we are to come into London by sea. That is perhaps the only option apparent to the people of Hastings and Rye.

Ms Jackson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on what I would dub a very nice try. I should point out that the Government have already stated that they are looking at incorporating all transport modes, not least inland waterways and coastal shipping. I shall leave him to decide what he will make of that reply.
The Highways Agency's programme of small safety schemes is continuing, and includes several schemes for the A21. It includes providing improved turning facilities, improving junctions, minor realignments of the route, and providing footways.
Despite the arguments put forward in the debate, which I well understand, the Government believe that there is no substitute for rigorous case-by-case examination of the options. Volume two of our roads review consultation document, "What Role for Trunk Roads in England?", sets out region by region the perceived traffic problems and the roads programme inherited from our predecessors.
The existence of a scheme in the inherited programme is seen as prima facie evidence that there is a transport problem. We sought from our regional consultations a view on whether those are the most important problems or whether other problems deserve greater priority. We envisage two outputs from that part of the review: a firm, short-term investment programme, and a programme of studies to look at the remaining problems—out of which the medium and long-term investment programme will emerge.
Turning to the particular concerns of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, as he said, the A21 is a road of regional significance, linking Hastings, which has assisted area status, and Tunbridge Wells to London and, via the M25, to the rest of the country. It is the only radial trunk road between the M20 to Folkestone and the M23/A23 to Brighton. It is paralleled in the transport corridor by the London-Tonbridge-Hastings railway. It is predominantly


a single carriageway road with a number of local bypasses: Sevenoaks bypass, built in 1968; Tonbridge bypass, built in 1970; and Pembury bypass, built in 1988.
The residential areas in the towns along the A21 generate significant commuter traffic, which uses the A21 to access the M25 and the national network. The A21 also acts as a distributor road for the local network.
I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for early decisions on the schemes that have already completed their statutory processes and have been through a number of reviews, but I repeat that we must first complete our on-going review.
The Government office for the south-east held three day-long seminars in autumn as part of our consultation process on integrated transport. One in Ashford in October looked at transport corridors in the region of the Government office for the south east, including north-south routes between the M25 and the south coast. Many of the points that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells made about the importance of safety, the environment and of achieving the regeneration objectives for Hastings with regard to the A21 Tonbridge bypass to Pembury bypass dualling and the A21 Lamberhurst bypass schemes were also made by delegates at the seminar and in the written responses that we received to the roads review.
My noble Friend the Minister for Roads recently met hon. Members who represent the south-east region, including the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, to discuss the views expressed by delegates at the seminars and to hear any further views that hon. Members wished to add. We shall be taking all those views into account in deciding how best to proceed.
Our roads review is a vital part of our work in developing a forward-looking integrated transport policy that supports a strong economy, contributes to a sustainable environment and helps to create a just and inclusive society. Through the work under way on trunk roads, we wish to achieve a robust short-term programme and a system for planning future investment in the road network, whether that is through measures to make better use of the network or by providing new infrastructure—which, as I said, is fair and seen to be fair; which allows a proper opportunity for all concerned to make their contribution; and which looks at transport problems squarely in the context of an integrated strategy.
The first output will be an integrated transport policy White Paper, which we hope to publish in the spring. The second will be the outcome of the trunk roads review, which will be published in a report—no more than a few months later, we hope. That will flesh out the Government's integrated transport policy as it affects trunk roads and will outline which schemes are to be taken forward to construction in the next few years—subject, in some cases, to satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures.
As I said earlier, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for bringing the issues relating to the A21 in Kent to the attention of the House. I am sure, however, that he understands that, until we have completed the roads review, we cannot say what conclusions we will reach about the A21.

Home Zones

Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want you to imagine a long terraced street in Leeds built in the early part of the century, normally cobbled, but now covered in grassy turf. There are no cars, and children are playing in the street as if it were a park. That is exactly what the residents of a group of streets in Chapel Allerton in Leeds, known as the Methleys, did in the summer of 1996, just for a weekend.
The residents grassed over the street to make a point: that those streets are for people—for children, not for vehicles. The weekend was fun, but more than that, the residents worked together for a common purpose—to give their children a safe play area.
The Methleys were built in 1903 as housing for workers. I understand that the developers were subsidised by the then Conservative Government. They consist of solid terraced houses, like so many others throughout the country. Some of the houses have small gardens, but there are few green spaces. Once, the 300 or so houses held an homogenous group of people all of whom worked in the same place. Now they are home to a diverse group of about 650 people from many different backgrounds and cultures.
It all started in the early autumn of 1994. Rita King, who has lived in the Methleys all her life, wanted to start a play scheme in the nearby primary school, to get the children off the streets over the summer holiday. Having failed to get the play scheme going before the end of the holiday, she realised that something more was necessary, so she organised a public meeting.
The meeting was well advertised and unusually well attended, and the focus was on children. Steven Renee from Leeds Metropolitan university came to talk about what could be done locally, and the people there set up Methley Neighbourhood Action and applied for a Royal Institute of British Architects community fund grant for a feasibility study, which was carried out by a local architect, Edward Walker.
In August 1995, one of the gable-end walls was painted white and made into a cinema screen on which films were projected. That was one of the first "on the streets" events. The first film shown was Alan Parker's "The Commitments", which had an audience of more than 300 people, sitting on living room sofas brought out into the street, with the aid of, as The Times put it:
four local girls who acted as usherettes complete with torches and name badges, handing out free popcorn"—

a different sort of cinema indeed.
What brought the Methleys to national prominence was the brave decision to turf the entire length of Methley terrace for the weekend of 17 August 1996. Methley Neighbourhood Action hired a firm called Inturf. Its sister company had done the same thing in the Champs Elysées in Paris—slightly grander than the Methleys—but that was the first time that such a scheme had been carried out in this country.
The effect was to create a sort of village green, which allowed the local children to play safely outside on a clear summer day. The £1,500 cost of the turf was met by Leeds city council, Shell's "Better Britain" project and


Transport 2000, and the grass was kept fresh by the children using watering cans as, thanks to Yorkshire Water, there was a hosepipe ban at the time. Most of the time the children just ended up watering each other.
The police, I am glad to say, were helpful, and I understand that the council highways department "looked the other way" from the temporary road closure. On 17 August 1996 The Guardian said:
Methley Terrace (100 yards long, 10 degree slope, houses on the left, school on the right) was covered in green turf. It looked like a pathway to heaven".
Because few of the houses in the Methleys have gardens, the street is the only public space available. The aim of the weekend turfing was to show just how effective simple changes in street design can be. It was the idea of Adrian Sinclair, a theatre director and teacher who lives in the Methleys with his partner, Linda Strudwick, and their two small children.
Of course it could not last, although one resident who had lived in Methley Terrace for 38 years, and who had been rather dubious about the plan beforehand, said:
I'd like this grass to be permanent. We thought this road plan would be impossible, a bit of a ridiculous thing to do, but they've proved us wrong. They've done a good job".
By Monday, Methley terrace was back to normal and the turf was sold at 70p a square metre to residents lucky enough to have gardens.
In 1995, Methley Neighbourhood Action had carried out a survey of the residents to find out what their main concerns were. It revealed that four issues were uppermost in their minds: traffic, the environment—including dog mess—crime, and play for children. Since that survey, those four issues have been concentrated upon.
The nature of the neighbourhood has changed a little, of course, since the properties were built in 1903. There is now a much greater diversity of people living in those streets, including residents of Polish, Asian and Afro-Caribbean origin. The range of jobs—and the lack of them—is also far greater than in 1903, so one of the aims of the home zones idea is to bring local people together and to re-establish a sense of community and identity. That has been successful, and has been greatly helped by Transport 2000's "Streets for People" campaign.
Last December, the Children's Play Council held a meeting in the House of Commons, hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton). At that meeting, 12 children and four adults from the Methleys told us about what they had done in that small group of city streets. They were so enthusiastic that my hon. Friend decided to introduce a ten-minute Bill, which she did on 27 January.
In her introductory speech, my hon. Friend told the House:
A home zone is a street or group of streets where pedestrians and cyclists have priority and cars travel at a top speed of 10 mph. Drivers have to give way to pedestrians and cyclists and are normally responsible for any injury caused to them. The change in the status of the road is clearly indicated through signing, traffic calming measures and landscaping features such as seating, other street furniture and plants."—[Official Report, 27 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 149.]
My hon. Friend went on to say that research conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 1996 had found that estates with traffic calming measures and good space

in the front street provided the best environment for children. Nearly one child in four engaged in all kinds of healthy activity in such areas—three times the level in poorly designed estates. My hon. Friend quoted the authors of the report as saying that streets in such estates should have a speed limit of 10 mph.
When children can play in their local streets within sight of their own homes, the activity is enriched in two ways. They enjoy the experience of open public territory with all the challenges offered by street life, similar to the communal play often described by their grandparents. They are also observed by friendly adults—not policed, not made part of the institutional framework provided by the school or youth group, but none the less sheltered by their own community.
It is especially opportune that I have the chance to raise the issue now, because the Children's Society has designated February as the country's first ever children's planning and environment month. The society feels that children need to be involved in planning issues if we are to make our cities, towns and villages safe for children and young people to thrive in.
For several years, the Children's Society has promoted the views of children and young people in planning. Apparently, the issues about which children often express concern include the danger of traffic; pollution; the need for safe places to play and for after-school meeting places free from alcohol and drugs; and poor street lighting.
Ian Sparks, chief executive of the Children's Society, has said that there is a perception that cities are in danger of becoming no-go areas for children.
We want to reclaim our communities for children",
he said—and that is exactly what Methley Neighbourhood Action is trying to achieve.

Mr. Paul Truswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from being traffic-management measures only, home zones have enormous potential? They will make more secure and stable those areas that face the problems that he describes, and they may also reduce the demand for, and drift to, the development of green-field and green-belt sites.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Home zones are not about traffic management only. They have a whole range of social effects on the communities, as I hope I have begun to describe.
No home zones have yet been established in the United Kingdom, but what happened in the Methleys has shown us what is possible. That is a tribute to all those who have worked to organise the community, particularly Adrian Sinclair, Thalia Savva, Tim David, Linda Strudwick, Steve Hodson and Rita King, to name but a few.
There is nothing unique about the Methleys, which shatters the myth that there is no longer any such thing as a community. Methley Neighbourhood Action has brought together and given a common purpose to a culturally and socially mixed group of people.
What are plans does Methley Neighbourhood Action have? Edward Walker's report, published in November 1995, gives some ideas for plans for the millennium. He suggests that non-local traffic should be kept out of the area and emphasis put on the fact that the Methleys are a distinct and special housing neighbourhood. Moreover,


he recommends that all entries to the area should be marked by gateway features, and that the character of the streets should be changed to ensure pedestrian priority over all vehicles in all the streets.
The residents of the Methleys now feel that they have the responsibility for keeping their own streets clean. They are not letting the council off the hook, of course, but they believe that things can be done jointly. For example, a community clear-up was held last Saturday, and when I visited the area last week it was far cleaner than most other parts of the city.
The Countryside Commission millennium green fund, together with Leeds city council, has agreed to finance a community garden, which will be constructed at the end of a road that will be closed. It will be a genuinely public area and project. Partly financed by the local authority, it will be created by the residents and is due for completion by the end of next year.
I conclude with the words of John Hodson, one of the Methley residents who came, with 12 children and four adults, to London in December. These are his views of that day in Westminster:
I was excited about being able to go in front of MPs and talk about something that if they gave the power to the local council would be able to help lots of people with the problem of cars going too fast.
The most memorable part of the whole trip was when we were actually in the Houses of Parliament, in the Jubilee Room, talking about Home Zones, why we should have them and what they would be to people who live in areas where there are too few places for children to play and too many cars travelling too fast.
The worst part of the trip was when the camera crew"—
from Yorkshire Television—
kept us standing in the rain so they could film us meeting Fabian Hamilton … Overall the day went brilliantly and was a memorable day and a great experience".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) on reintroducing to the House the issue of home zones only two weeks after my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) raised the subject through a ten-minute Bill—I am happy to see that she is here today. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in allowing our hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) to contribute; in his comparatively short intervention, he detailed with clarity some of the benefits that are inherent to home zones.
The issue seems to be coming at us from every direction. The Children's Play Council recently published a brochure entitled "Home Zones", which featured the Methleys area of Leeds on its cover. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East said, the Children's Society attaches much importance to the concept; in declaring February a month dedicated to children and their play, it underlined the fact that—as everyone who is interested in the social and educational development of children has known for a long time—play in safety and with others is a great teaching tool.
One of the proposals for the creation of home zones is that pedestrians and cyclists should be given priority over vehicles. Pedestrians currently have statutory priority

when crossing the road at zebra and light-controlled crossings. Rule 68 of the highway code requires drivers who are turning into side streets to give priority to those pedestrians who are already crossing. Elsewhere on the carriageway, however, all types of traffic have equal entitlement to pass and re-pass, so new legislation would be required.
Other proposals include 10 mph speed limits, traffic calming and changes to the appearance of the street. I would love to have been sitting on one of the sofas when the film was shown in the street that had temporarily been transformed into a cinema, although I regret that only popcorn, and no ice cream, was available.
It may help the House if I explain what is already available to local authorities to make the streets safer and more pleasant—for residents and their children, for walkers and for cyclists—and perhaps to restore that sense of community to which my hon. Friend so tellingly referred. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 contains powers for traffic authorities to make orders regulating, restricting or prohibiting the use of specified roads by traffic or by specified types of traffic. The grounds on which orders can be made include maintaining and enhancing local amenity, and preventing use of a road by traffic that is deemed unsuitable. Orders can be used, for example, to keep long or heavy vehicles out of purely residential areas.
One of the aims of establishing home zones is to create an environment in which children can play safely in their streets, as my hon. Friend said. I am old enough to remember a time when the street was the only place where we could play.
Section 29 of the 1984 Act contains a specific power providing that traffic authorities may make orders prohibiting or restricting the use of a road by traffic, or specific types of traffic, to enable the road to be used as a playground for children. Such orders are expected to make provision for reasonable access to premises on, or adjacent to, the road.
Those powers have been used by some local authorities, but the Act is explicit about the purposes for which such orders can be made. An authority that wanted to use the powers to provide more general benefits to the local community could be liable to challenge. Indeed, some residents might be uneasy about the prospect of their street being specifically designated as a children's play area.
My Department's guidance on the use of this order-making power advises that the roads that are chosen should neither be of value to through traffic nor lead directly into very busy roads. That guards against the danger of children—who can lose all sense of time and place when they are most engaged in play—running on to busy roads.
The advice is that, in deciding whether to designate a road as a playground, authorities should look critically at the availability of public open space in the vicinity that could provide a suitable alternative play site. It also suggests that it is preferable, where possible, to designate a group of streets rather than one street.
Section 31 of the 1984 Act provides for traffic authorities to make byelaws in respect of roads designated as playgrounds. These may make provision with respect to the admission of children to the road; to the safety of children in the road and their protection from injury by


vehicles using the road for access purposes; and generally to the proper management of the road. Such byelaws are subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. My Department has not issued advice on what such byelaws might contain. The guidance simply observes that, in practice, councils scarcely ever find it necessary to make them, and that applications for confirmation would be treated on their individual merits.
The requirement for very low speed limits presents other difficulties. We do not have traffic-calming measures that could reduce speeds to 10 mph. Research has led to the design of road humps and other features which, although relying on discomfort, do not crete unreasonable discomfort. To achieve greater reductions in speed would require extreme discomfort being employed. Complaints have been received—for example, from groups representing disabled people—about the discomfort experienced from the present humps. Using more severe ones would severely disadvantage people with disabilities. Our current research has not investigated the use of road humps or other traffic-calming measures to achieve very low speeds, so it would be necessary to carry out further research to ensure that such devices are safe to use on public roads.
We know from extensive international research that, as vehicle speeds reduce to 20 mph, the risk of fatal or serious injuries to pedestrians decreases significantly, but further speed reductions do not bring about corresponding safety benefits. Twenty mph zones have proved to be very effective in reducing speeds, accidents and accident casualties—particularly those involving pedestrians and cyclists.
Monitoring of vehicle speeds shows that drivers are less likely to adhere to low speed limits. Therefore, the making of 20 mph speed limits is dependent on the local authorities introducing traffic-calming measures, thus forcing traffic to slow down. A system was devised that involved local highway authorities making such a speed limit order if average speeds could be reduced to 20 mph or less using self-enforcing traffic-calming measures. That established the concept of 20 mph zones. To date, over 300 have been put in place. They require the consent of the Secretary of State.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has announced plans to make it easier for local authorities to create such zones. It is the intention to simplify the

procedure, enabling local authorities to make greater use of such schemes in residential and other urban areas. The exact changes to the procedures are being developed and are expected to be in place later this year.
There is a need to make progress, and we support the broader objectives of home zones. There is much experience of 20 mph zones and traffic-calming measures generally. Those measures, in conjunction with existing legislation, can be used to establish safer and quieter streets in residential areas. It is clear that inappropriate speed is one of the main causes of accidents. The Department's "Kill Your Speed" publicity campaign emphasises the dangers. Traffic calming has proved remarkably successful in reducing pedestrian casualties; 20 mph zones can reduce child pedestrian casualties by 70 per cent.
Much can be done to change the road layout to help limit vehicle speeds and to improve the appearance of a calmed street so that it no longer looks like a traffic route. The road humps and chicanes—which are effective in reducing speeds—can be used in conjunction with other features to change the characteristic appearance of the highway. The relative widths of the carriageway and footway can be varied, and this may be helpful in establishing a gateway to low-speed areas. Appropriate signing, street furniture—possibly including sofas—and a carriageway surface that is better adapted to walking and cycling could feature and reinforce the message to drivers that they are entering a lower-speed, residential area.
My Department will be pleased to work with local authorities wishing to establish such low-speed zones on a trial basis. Trials would help determine how far 20 mph zones, traffic calming and the other measures would go towards achieving the home zone aims and how to reconcile potential conflicts between play areas and the residential environment. Home zones as they are deployed in other countries would require some fundamental changes in our legislation, but we should in any event first look at exploiting existing powers to the full.
The Government are committed to changing the current perceptions and attitudes towards transport and the environment, and towards car use in particular. Measures to realise better conditions for walking and cycling, to reduce pollution and to reduce the dominance of the motor car all relate closely to the home zones objectives. Surely our prime considerations should be our children, their safety and their ability to play in safety.

Guardsmen Fisher and Wright

Mr. Martin Bell: I am extremely grateful for this opportunity. I shall be brief, as I know that other hon. Members would like to intervene. This, to me, is not a party or a partisan issue. It is an issue which involves justice and the rights of men.
At the outset, I pay tribute to two Members of Parliament who have promoted their constituency interests and who have a long record of involvement in the case. One is the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), one of whose constituents is Sheila Fisher, the mother of Guardsman Fisher; the other is the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), whose constituents include Guardsman Wright. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who, unfortunately, cannot be present today but whose support for the cause of justice is invaluable.
Perhaps I should explain my involvement. It comes as a result of a request from the Release group, representing many old soldiers and their families and other people concerned about this case. Regiments are families, and the feeling of this family is unanimous. My involvement is also in accordance with the wishes of the two Scots guardsmen themselves, serving life sentences in Maghaberry prison in Northern Ireland, and of their families. I was very pleased to receive a most gracious note to this effect from Mrs. Fisher.
It is not my intention, nor is it that of the campaign, to reopen the case of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright—the time for that has passed—or to plead extenuating circumstances or excuses, because the time for that has passed as well. However, I will restate the plain facts of the case. On 4 September 1992, Guardsmen Fisher and Wright were part of a Scots Guards patrol in the New Lodge area of Belfast. Fisher was then 24 years old, and Wright was just 19. The patrol commander became involved in an altercation with a young man, Peter McBride, whom the patrol had stopped for questioning and who had wrenched the patrol commander's radio earpiece from his ear.
Mr. McBride ran off and the two guardsmen were ordered to give chase and grab him. Three streets later—after warnings that they would shoot if he did not stop—they shot and killed him. The young men believed that they were acting in the line of duty, and that Peter McBride was a terrorist. They also believed that their own lives were in danger. It is now clear that they made a terrible error of judgment—I would even call it a murderous error. For this, they were tried and sentenced to life imprisonment as common murderers, for the law as it applies in Northern Ireland makes no distinction between what they did and a cold, deliberate act of murder by a cold-blooded, deliberate murderer. Indeed, the law makes it clear that a British soldier on duty alleged to have killed a suspect under any circumstances can be tried only on a charge of murder. Lesser charges of culpable homicide or manslaughter are not permitted. A murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is morally indefensible for the British state to treat soldiers who, at a time of tension,

make dreadful mistakes in the same way as it treats those who conspire and calculate to kill, maim and commit acts of terrorism against the state?

Mr. Bell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This troubles Labour Members as well—I know that it does. In the real world, what do we have? Fisher and Wright are being treated as common murderers, as if they had set out that morning with the intention of murdering someone. Instead, they were serving their country and they were instruments of British Government policy.
The guardsmen are now into their sixth year of imprisonment and later this month they will serve their 2,000th day in gaol. In the comparable cases of Privates Clegg and Thain, the sentences served were between three and four years. To make those points is not to diminish or belittle in any way the grief of the McBride family, but it is to make the point that there were other victims and other victim families—and there still are. This is a time for reconciliation rather than vengeance. I know that there are members of the minority community in Northern Ireland who will agree that Guardsmen Fisher and Wright were also victims of the conflict—and still are.

Mr. Alan Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech, to which I am listening with great attention. When he draws the attention of the House to the fact that the guardsmen have already served six years in gaol, we must remember that that is longer than the average time served in gaol by common murderers—not by terrorists—who are sentenced to life imprisonment. With two thirds remissions and various other provisions for parole, such common murderers—without even the excuse that terrorists often have of commitment to various ideals—seldom serve more than six years in gaol.

Mr. Bell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. Our disquiet is also shared by Members on the Government Benches, as it should be.
As the sentences will not be reviewed until October, it may be asked whether now is a good time to seek an early review or an early release, in view of the tensions and the time of hope and promise in the negotiations. We have reached a sensitive moment, but any time is a sensitive time in the peace process. A clear line must be drawn between justice and politics. We seek from the Government an assurance that political considerations have nothing to do with the continued detention of Jim Fisher and Mark Wright as common criminals.
I was gratified to read in a letter sent to me by the Minister of State a recognition of a distinction between a terrible mistake made by soldiers on duty and a premeditated act of murder. He wrote:
Clearly, the circumstances that resulted in this particular murder cannot in any way be compared with carefully pre-planned and executed murders carried out by terrorist-type offenders.
That is an important distinction. If it is made in the category of the crime, it should surely also be made in the length of the sentence.
I believe that I speak for a growing number of people in this country when I say it is time for an early review of the guardsmen's sentences. It is time to stand up for the victims of the conflict, and Guardsmen Fisher and


Wright are victims of the conflict, just as Peter McBride was a victim of the conflict. It is also time for justice and for mercy.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on raising this important subject, and thank him for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I also congratulate the Scots Guards Association on its activities on behalf of the two guardsmen, including petitions, letters and media activity—even down to the creation of a pipe tune called "Freedom", which I look forward to hearing. The two men can be assured of the absolute support of their regiment, both past and present.
My plea today is on behalf of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Wright and their son Mark, and for the release of both guardsmen. I am well aware that the situation involves a tragedy for three families—one in Northern Ireland and two in Scotland. The only hope in an otherwise hopeless situation is to allow the two men to rebuild their shattered lives. Their crime was simply to do their duty in the most trying and difficult circumstances possible—circumstances that most of us can barely even imagine. What is done is done, and the events of that day cannot be reversed.
The legal system has made the guardsmen pay a considerable price for what happened, but there must come a point when the penalty is finally paid and the two guardsmen can resume their lives as free men and rebuild their futures. Since young Mark Wright has now spent nearly a quarter of his life in prison, that time must have come. His parents have lived from October review to October review, only to have their hopes dashed every time. Legal moves have been made to try to win freedom for the guardsmen, but again their parents have been disappointed.
I ask the Minister to let the guardsmen share, at the very least, in the Christmas prisoner release scheme. It is a cruel irony to see convicted civilians return to their homes for Christmas, while the two soldiers are kept under lock and key. Although I want both men to be released permanently, I ask that, while they remain under sentence they are allowed to share the benefits of any temporary release scheme. I urge the Government to treat the men as a priority and to treat them on the merits of their case, instead of as part of any wider system of negotiations. The time has come to free those men—and the sooner the better.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) has taken a keen interest in the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright in recent months. I am aware of his public support for the campaign to secure their early release, and I congratulate him on his success in securing this Adjournment debate today. I join him in recognising the role played by the men's constituency Members of Parliament—the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Angus (Mr. Welsh)—who have taken a keen interest in the families. I pay tribute to the assiduous way in which they have carried our their duties on behalf of the families.
The cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright have generated considerable interest, both inside and outside the House. Since taking office, the Secretary of State for

Northern Ireland and I have responded to more than 100 inquiries from hon. Members about the cases and to many more inquiries from other interested parties. I therefore welcome this further opportunity to explain to the House where the cases currently stand.
The facts of the cases are well known, but are worth restating none the less. The guardsmen were jointly convicted of the murder of an unarmed civilian youth, Peter Paul McBride, during an incident that occurred when they were on patrol in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Tatton described. In the words of the learned trial judge, Lord Justice Kelly:
It is only right to point out that the events the accused Fisher had to deal with took place in daylight, on a bright morning in early September, with the suspect on foot retreating from him at all times and increasing the distance between them and over a distance of three streets. It was not a panic situation which required split second decision or split second action, if any action at all".
He continued:
As in the case of Fisher, the events of this early September morning did not, or could not, in my opinion have put Wright in any panic situation or any situation which called for a split second decision.
Similarly, it is right to point out that the judgment in the cases of Fisher and Wright was reserved pending the outcome of the Clegg appeal to the House of Lords on a point of law. In delivering his judgment, Lord Justice Kelly said:
I delayed my decision in this case until the House of Lords determined the point of general importance in Regina v Clegg, namely, whether a verdict of manslaughter was open to a court in circumstances when a soldier or police officer on duty used unreasonable force and killed a person in self-defence or in defence of another. Their Lordships answered the question in the negative. Even if their Lordships' answer had been in the affirmative I doubt if a verdict of manslaughter would fit my findings in this case".
The Guardsmen appealed their convictions and in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the then Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Brian Hutton, stated:
No bomb or firearm of any type was found in the course of the search and it was not in dispute that at no time had the deceased been carrying a gun or a coffee jar bomb or any type of bomb. Therefore, as the deceased was shot when he was unarmed, the appellants, on the objective facts, had no lawful justification for firing at the deceased.
The guardsmen were refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords on 8 March 1996.
It is, of course, not the role of the Secretary of State to determine questions of guilt or innocence. That is rightly a matter for the independent courts. However, the power to release life sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland rests with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Before exercising that power she is required to consult the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and the trial judge, if available.
In line with the established procedures, the first internal review of the guardsmen's cases began in early 1996, shortly after their appeals to the Court of Appeal had been dismissed. At that time, it was decided that the cases should be considered by the review board in October 1998, when the guardsmen would have served approximately six years in custody, and not at the normal 10-year stage. The then Secretary of State was advised of the decision and expressed his agreement with it. The prisoners were advised of the outcome of the review in writing on 13 June 1996. The decision was challenged in the courts by way of judicial review proceedings.
In his judgment, delivered on 20 December 1996, Mr. Justice Girvan criticised the decision on two main grounds. The first was that the Northern Ireland Office had not addressed itself to the proper question in examining the cases. In his view, the test to be applied should have been whether the cases raised issues worthy of consideration by the board, and if so, when. Secondly, he said that insufficient regard had been given to other cases, especially those related to other soldiers convicted of murder, sentenced to life imprisonment and released after a few years, and to manslaughter cases.
A fresh internal review of the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright was carried out in accordance with Mr. Justice Girvan's judgment. On that occasion, and on an exceptional basis, the then Secretary of State personally took the decision about the timing of the first referral of the cases to the review board, following advice from his officials. He decided that to ensure that the discretion of the board and, ultimately, the Secretary of State, was not limited by too late a referral, the cases should be considered by the board for the first time in October 1997, at the five-year point. The decision was, of course, without prejudice to the outcome of the review board's recommendations and the deliberations of a future Secretary of State. It is perhaps worth reflecting that the first review by the board normally takes place at the 10-year point, in the context that the average period served against a life sentence in Northern Ireland is around 15 years.
The guardsmen were informed of the fresh decision and advised that the earlier than normal review was not a guarantee that a recommendation for release would follow. They then brought a judicial review of the fresh decision and the cases were heard once again before Mr. Justice Girvan.

Mr. Alan Clark: The Minister cited the average term served in Northern Ireland. In putting the situation into the context of public indignation, which is very relevant, it is fairer to take the average served in mainland Britain. I do not know for certain—he could discuss it with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—but I believe that the average term actually served for criminal murder is between six and eight years before probation or parole proposal is given.

Mr. Ingram: The best advice that I can give the right hon. Gentleman is that for murder, no remission is granted to lifers. The average period served by lifers in England and Wales is between 13 and 15 years, contrary to what he said. If there is a dispute about the facts, they can be clarified later.
In his reserved judgment, delivered on 2 July 1997, Mr. Justice Girvan ordered that the decision be taken again. Having carefully considered the new judgment and after consulting the Department' s legal advisers, it was decided that the judgment should be appealed. On 15 August 1997, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside Mr. Justice Girvan's order of 2 July.
The Court of Appeal commented on the thoroughness with which the consideration of the cases had been carried out. It held that the Secretary of State had applied the proper test in determining when the cases should first be

considered by the review board and concluded that there had been sufficient analysis of the allegedly comparable cases.
The review board duly considered the cases at its meeting on 14 and 15 October 1997 at the five-year stage of the sentence. The confidential recommendation of the board was then referred to the Secretary of State for her personal consideration. I assure the House that the cases have been the subject of very detailed and thorough consideration by all those involved at the various stages of the review process. No extraneous considerations, political or otherwise, have been permitted to influence the decisions taken. I can give that absolute assurance to the hon. Member for Tatton.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I trust that the Minister will come to the representation made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) about why privileges given to others have not been given to these men.

Mr. Ingram: I will cover that point in due course.
The hon. Member for Tatton made a strong point about concerns that extraneous matters might have been brought into play. I set out the detailed way in which the Department and Secretaries of State have handled the matter to show that it has been dealt with very thoroughly and that no political or other considerations have in any way been brought to bear on the decisions taken. I stress again that the cases have been dealt with strictly on their individual merits.
Clearly, these are difficult cases, about which different people hold strong but conflicting views. The Secretary of State has recognised that, and, in personally considering them, following receipt of the views of review board, has been extremely careful to approach them objectively, based on the way in which the courts upheld the conviction for murder. She considered at length all the currently available information, court judgments and reports about the cases, including that relating to the other cases identified by officials and by the guardsmen's legal representatives, and she considered carefully the background circumstances in which the murder occurred. She concluded that, given all the available information, Guardsmen Fisher and Wright had not served a period sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the crime. She therefore decided to invite the review board to consider the cases again in October 1998, when each guardsman will have served approximately six years.
The two guardsmen were each provided with a written gist of the Secretary of State's consideration of their cases. The decision reflects the fact that a very serious crime has been committed that resulted in the death of an unarmed youth who was running away from an army patrol in circumstances in which the court found no lawful justification for the shooting. However, it also reflects the difficult background against which the offence was committed and in which the guardsmen were operating during the course of their duty and the fact that there was no premeditation.
Clearly, the circumstances that resulted in the murder cannot in any way be compared with carefully pre-planned and executed murders carried out by terrorist-type offenders. The hon. Member for Tatton referred to that statement. The letters of every hon. Member who has written to me reflect that point.
The guardsmen have recently been granted leave to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision, but no date has yet been set for the hearing.

Mr. Hunter: Has the Minister not effectively told us that it was as a result of the Secretary of State's personal intervention that the successful appeal of the guardsmen did not proceed to review last October and that it was effectively a political decision, her intervention, that resulted in a postponement of the activity of the review board?

Mr. Ingram: I do not think that I said that at all. I would like to disabuse the hon. Gentleman of that thought. I was saying that there was very careful handling. Every aspect of the case was taken into consideration: the allegedly comparable cases, and the nature and seriousness of the crime. I set out at length the background to that and the judicial comments made. So there is no overlay, and no intrusion of political interference in the case.

Mr. Alan Clark: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. Can he really tell the House that nowhere in all the papers attaching to this case is there mentioned any reference to the political aspect of a possible decision?

Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and has served as a Minister. He will know that it is impossible for me to recollect every document off the top of my head in the way he asks. What is important is not so much what the advice is or what is commented upon in a document as that which is taken into consideration in coming to a conclusion. I refute the implication that political considerations came into play.
Many of those who have raised these cases with myself and the Secretary of State have done so on the basis of a comparison with the cases of other soldiers convicted of offences committed while on duty in Northern Ireland—notably Private Clegg and Private Thain. While it is useful to recall these and other cases and to be aware of their outcomes, and the reasons for them, they lend little assistance to the deliberations, given the full facts of the guardsmen's particular cases.
Clearly, there are some parallels in terms of the lack of premeditation and the stresses on soldiers operating in Northern Ireland. However, it is not helpful to take the parallels too far, or to ignore the differences in the background circumstances. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that the courts must apply the law as it stands to the facts of individual cases.
Successive Governments have held to the principle that the criminal law, including that on the use of lethal force, should apply to members of the armed forces in the same way as it applies to all other citizens. To do otherwise would diminish public confidence in the impartiality of both the security forces and the law itself.
The hon. Member for Tatton asked whether the guardsmen should have been charged with the lesser offence of manslaughter as opposed to murder. In a response to the earlier case of Private Clegg, the then Home Secretary commissioned a review of the law of murder. The purpose of the review was to examine

whether persons who used excessive force in order to maintain law and order, or in self-defence, should be liable to a charge of murder or manslaughter, or some other charge, in circumstances which had resulted in the death of another person. The review also examined whether any special defences should apply. The conclusion of that review, announced early in 1996, was that an adequate case to change the law had not been made.
Like any other citizen, members of the security forces may use only such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected terrorists. Soldiers receive specific training on their legal position before being deployed to Northern Ireland, and are constantly reminded that they have no immunity from the law, and must always remain responsible for their actions under the law.

Mr. Martin Bell: I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the growing unease about this case in the armed forces, outside the armed forces and among the public at large, and not only in Scotland. There is a feeling that something is wrong. Does he share that view?

Mr. Ingram: I am certainly fully aware of the strength of feeling on this. We have had inquiries from about 100 hon. Members and many other letters. It would therefore be wrong to say that we were not aware of it. I am only too well aware of the difficult circumstances in which the forces of law and order have to operate in Northern Ireland. It is a difficult and arduous task that they have to perform on our behalf. But clearly, the rule of law must apply to those members of the security forces in the same way as it does to any other citizen.
To do otherwise would prejudice the minds of others as to the way in which the security forces were carrying out their actions and would diminish the rule of law overall. I make that point strongly. While we can share the concerns and understand the problems, the rule of law has to be applied equitably at all times. Clearly, these young soldiers and others who serve in Northern Ireland have difficult experiences.
One other point that has been raised with me in correspondence, although it was not raised in the debate, is why the guardsmen have not been permitted to serve their sentences in a prison nearer their families. The Government attach considerable importance to enabling prisoners to maintain family ties, and there are established mechanisms to permit this. To date, neither of the guardsmen has pursued a transfer. Should they wish to, I can assure the House that any application would be treated on its merits.
The hon. Members for Angus and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised the issue of Christmas leave. It has also been raised with me in correspondence.
It is important to put on record exactly what rules apply to Christmas home leave. It is available to prisoners who have served 10 years and to determinate sentence prisoners who are receiving pre-release leave. Like two thirds of sentenced prisoners in Northern Ireland, the guardsmen did not qualify. Clearly, if special circumstances had been applied to their case, we would have been faced with demands for judicial review and for equal treatment from the other prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons in Northern Ireland. That is the reason why the matter was dealt with in that way.
The guardsmen have not applied to go back to their families. That is a matter for them. If they wish to seek such a transfer, their applications would be treated on their merits.
I give this assurance to the House. I have listened with great interest to all that has been said by the hon. Member for Tatton and other hon. Members today. I wish to assure the hon. Gentleman that the views that he has expressed will be kept firmly in mind when the cases are next considered. They will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
I hope that the hon. Member and others who have contributed to the debate today and those who are campaigning outside the House on behalf of the guardsmen are prepared to accept that these cases are being dealt with according to the proper procedures, and that extraneous matters have not influenced, and will not be allowed to influence, decisions in relation to these cases.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Peace Process

Mr. Corbyn: If she will make a statement on the peace process. [26863]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): First, may I say that our thoughts are with the families of Brendan Campbell and Robert Dougan, who were callously murdered this week? Those murders and those that preceded them are appalling, and I am sure that all hon. Members in the House utterly condemn what has happened.
In contrast to those bleak acts, I have been encouraged by the discussions that have taken place—last week, at Lancaster house and this week, in Belfast. I hope that that momentum will be maintained when the talks move to Dublin next week.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, and congratulate her on her efforts to keep the peace process going in Northern Ireland.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite the appalling killings that took place yesterday, and those of the past few weeks, the British and Irish Government are determined that the peace process should go on and that all parties should remain around the conference table and remain in proper and full negotiation to bring about a permanent peace that can end the killing and mayhem that have been so prevalent in Northern Ireland for so long?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind opening remarks. I join him in deploring the fact that nine people have been killed this year and three killed in December. We do not want to see that repeated. I also deplore the recent murders that have taken place in Northern Ireland. It has been widely asserted that one or other paramilitary group linked to parties in the talks, to which my hon. Friend has referred, has been involved in those killings. That fact has not been reliably established. If and when it is, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will not hesitate to act to determine whether the party concerned has demonstrably dishonoured its commitment to the Mitchell principles.

Mr. Trimble: I associate myself with the Secretary of State's remarks about the murders, and particularly wish to extend sympathy to the relatives of the victims not just of the two killings of which we have been aware this week, but of what appears to have been another killing, because a body has been dumped close to the Fermanagh border, in an area regularly used by republicans to dump bodies.
I also welcome what the Secretary of State said about the application of the Mitchell principles. She will be aware of the need to maintain the integrity of the political process and to ensure that it is not used and abused by the terrorists, as it has been in the past. In that connection,

has she been in touch with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and asked the Chief Constable for his assessment of who has been responsible for the murders this week? The answer is fairly clear to everybody, and certain conclusions will be drawn if there is a reluctance on either her part or that of the Chief Constable to face up to the inevitable.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and I agree with him that the need to preserve the integrity of the peace process is central. That is what we said two weeks ago, when we faced a comparable situation in some senses—we are not yet sure how comparable. The right hon. Gentleman implied that the facts are already clear, but there is still a great deal of speculation about who is involved and we have not yet reliably established what actually happened.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's final question about whether we have consulted the RUC, of course I am in constant contact with the Chief Constable regarding his assessment, and I was obviously in contact with him this morning because of Northern Ireland questions this afternoon.
The investigation has not yet been completed. The Chief Constable is not ready to draw conclusions, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, when he does, I know that, as on previous occasions, he will inform me, and I will certainly put that information in the public domain when I know. Speculation is not constructive at this point, but when the facts are there, I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman and everyone knows.

Mr. McNamara: First, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government are lost in admiration for her physical and moral courage in the personal and political difficulties that she has had over the past few months and years? Secondly, none of us doubt her integrity on this matter, and we very much welcome her statement that the Mitchell principles will govern any decision that is taken, not any petty sniping from one side or another.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for those kind comments. It is not only the actions of the Government or of Her Majesty's Opposition that are important in the process. Whether we make an agreement by 1 May on the principles of consent of the parties and the people in Northern Ireland will depend on the leaders of the talks in the process, as well as on the actions of the two Governments.
I believe that we have made progress in the past couple of months. I believe that the determination and the courage that all political party leaders have shown is important, and I hope that they will continue. I hope, despite the view of some hon. Members in the House, that the process eventually becomes inclusive.

Mr. Brooke: Does the Secretary of State recall that, at the Evian talks on Algeria, delegates were issued with ski clothes and with Volkswagens with skis on their roof racks? Without going that far, does she agree that a period of media-free purdah might be productive and might even save lives, and does she recall that the Evian talks were successful?

Marjorie Mowlam: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's question, I shall focus on the role of the


media, which is terribly important, and which was the crux of what he said. There is a contradiction that we have talked about a lot, both in government and with the parties. The difficulty is that the public have a right to know what is going on and, if they are going to vote in a referendum, they need to know the facts. They need to know how their political representatives are discussing the issue, and what is happening week by week.
The other side of that equation is that negotiations are not successful if they take place in the glare of the media, because people immediately entrench their position and one then cannot achieve the necessary accommodation and discussion of the issues. Therefore it is a very difficult question to address, which is why—skis, Range Rovers and Algeria apart—it can sometimes be beneficial to have a period when there is no need to respond immediately. That is my view, but ultimately it will be for the parties to decide what they think is most constructive and helpful to move the process forward.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Secretary of State aware that a vast number of people in Northern Ireland would be horrified at the prospect of the readmission to the talks of the Ulster Democratic party after the organisation that it fronts murdered three Catholics, and that, equally, if the information from the Royal Ulster Constabulary should reveal that the Provisional IRA were involved in the recent murders, their expulsion should be permanent, as should be that of all those who are in breach of the fundamental Mitchell principles?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman. In answer to the second part of his question, I have made it clear that, when the facts are reliably established, we and the Irish will discuss the issue and reach a conclusion, without hesitation, as to following the rules of procedure that have been set down in the talks.
In response to the first part of the question, about the Ulster Democratic party, I should say that, having looked at the details and read the Mitchell principles, we implemented a decision two weeks ago. I have said that we need to examine the words and deeds since then; we shall do so towards the end of this week, discuss with the Irish and take a decision. That is in line with the Mitchell principles, and I think it is a fair and equitable way forward.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State enlarge upon when, in her opinion, the facts might be made clear? Will that be when arrests are made, when charges are levelled or when a court case is adjudicated? Is she prepared to accept the Royal Ulster Constabulary's inquiry and the findings that it will put before her?
On the other side, matters were brought to a head when the RUC made a statement about the Ulster Freedom Fighters. The UFF also admitted its involvement, but it is hardly likely that the IRA and others will admit anything. When does the Secretary of State believe that she will be in a position to say that the facts are clear? Does she agree that the current situation is causing grave concern across all parties in Northern Ireland? Both the Roman Catholic and Protestant communities are deeply concerned about recent events. I am sure that the Secretary of State is well

aware that the police are visiting prominent people in Northern Ireland, including politicians, and telling them that they are being targeted for killing.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am aware of the present situation—no one who has travelled to Northern Ireland could be unaware of it. The hon. Gentleman lives there; I do not. However, I am sure that he will agree that there is great fear, distrust and worry on the ground within both communities. That is why it is important that, from a security perspective, we do all that we can to reassure people. Instability will create further fear in the present climate, which is difficult for everyone to cope with.
In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall do what I did before. When the RUC and the Chief Constable take an independent operational decision and come to me with the facts, we shall act. We did that before, and we shall do it again.

Ms Southworth: Five years ago, a terrorist bomb killed two children in my constituency. Colin Parry, the father of one of them, told me today, "We want no more deaths." Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the voices of the victims of violence—people who seek an early, peaceful and lasting settlement—are heard at the conference table?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The events in Warrington will never be forgotten by anyone. We remember particularly the commitment of Mr. Parry and others who, despite losing people dear to them, were able to look beyond their hurt and loss and say, "It is important that other families do not experience the same suffering." One must take difficult decisions in this job—and I have taken some that have been unpopular, particularly with the other side of the House. However, one thing keeps me going. People telephone to say, "We have lost people. That hurt. We do not agree with your decisions." However, it is interesting to note that I receive about the same number of calls and letters from people who have lost family and friends but who say, "I don't want anybody else to experience what we have been through."

Mr. Öpik: Given the very tense situation in Northern Ireland—where, frankly, any action by the Government could be misinterpreted—will the Minister consider establishing a high-profile communications process between the Government and community leaders so that they may understand the true intent of new legislation? In that way, new legislation—such as the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill—may be tested in the conference chamber instead of on the streets of Northern Ireland.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. As to the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill—I know that the hon. Gentleman served on the Committee that considered the measure—we are in the process of seeing how we can distribute material to the public.
The hon. Gentleman's broader point—which relates to the first question asked from the Opposition Benches—is well taken: how do we encourage people to engage in decision making? That is very difficult. We have engaged the parties in the talks, and we involve some community


groups, industry and trade unions in the Group of Seven. However, I am open to ideas about how we can reach out even further. The newspapers in Northern Ireland have been very good at publishing information, but we must find other ways of reaching people and ensuring that they know the details of legislation and the talks.

Mr. Barnes: Whatever hideous things the paramilitaries do in Northern Ireland, does not the future depend, to a large extent, on what might be called a Hume-Trimble agreement? Should we not do everything we can to encourage the parties to reach such an agreement? An agreement that is finally put to the Northern Ireland people will entirely undermine the position of paramilitaries for the future.

Marjorie Mowlam: We have always argued that it is the parties that have to reach agreement. As I said in response to an earlier question, we obviously want that agreement to be as inclusive as possible. Although, as my hon. Friend suggests, an agreement between the UUP and the SDLP is the central focus, it would be much more beneficial for everybody to be included because the probability of the agreement being accepted would be that much greater. Other parties represent other sections of the community, and we should like an agreement to be as inclusive as possible. However, I know that I will not get very far with the DUP. Beyond that, the agreement must be between the parties, and in the present process we want to do what we can to reach that conclusion.

Mr. MacKay: The Secretary of State clearly shares our view that the men of violence must not hijack the political process. We were delighted when she took our advice and threw the Ulster Democratic party out of the talks. Will she ensure that it does not return to the talks as its paramilitary colleagues are clearly still bent on sectarian violence? We strongly believe that, if the IRA is proved to be behind the latest murders, there is no question but that Sinn Fein has breached the Mitchell principles and should also be removed from the talks.

Marjorie Mowlam: I think that I have already answered the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question a number of times. The first part was about taking advice. I have often made it clear that I will take advice from across the board because it is important to listen to everybody's view and draw a conclusion, which is what we have done. The hon. Gentleman asked about the UDP not coming back into the talks. We have made it clear that we want to make the process inclusive. We have also made it clear that, in line with the Mitchell principles, if by word and deed it shows a commitment to the Mitchell principles, then after a certain time, which we are now assessing, the position can be altered. That was agreed with the parties at Lancaster house when this matter was discussed two weeks ago.

Mr. MacKay: Is the Secretary of State still sticking by the sufficiency consensus rule, which would mean that, if

Sinn Fein is removed from the talks, the talks would not be over by any means and a settlement could still be reached?

Marjorie Mowlam: We still stick by the sufficiency consensus rule, and my sums say that, as the SDLP is there, we can go ahead.

Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State will recognise that, once again, the Governments and the political parties are caught in the classic Northern Ireland dilemma. There is the moral imperative to ensure that the Mitchell principles and the principles of democracy underline the talks. There is also the political imperative to ensure that there is a final settlement and that it is inclusive.
Does the Secretary of State agree that whatever decision is made on the evidence that, is presented to the Governments and through them to the political parties in the talks, that decision must be rooted in terms of the moral core of the political process in which we are all involved? Does she further agree that, to sustain that, urgency must be injected into the talks process from this Parliament and from the Parliament in the Republic of Ireland so that those who are not engaging, those who are half engaging and those who are posturing are not allowed to stand in the way of reaching a final agreement on this crucial problem?

Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the problem that lies between the moral principle and the political imperative. We faced it two weeks ago and we shall face it again on this issue if and when the facts are presented and we need to.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is crucial that the urgency of the present situation is taken into account, not just by people here but by the party leaders, the Irish Government and others who have an interest in this process. In the weeks ahead, we will be faced not just with trying to take the process forward—as we get closer to the detail, it gets tougher on the parties to try to find an accommodation—but with the fringe groups who are not committed to the process and want to destroy it, such as the Irish National Liberation Army, the Continuity IRA and the Loyalist Volunteer Force. With them on the edges making trouble with violence and murder, it will be very tough. I second the call for urgency.

Nursery Education

Mr. Jim Murphy: If she will make a statement on nursery education in Northern Ireland. [26866]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): We are creating 2,200 new pre-school education places from September. That will be an increase of over 20 per cent. on existing provision. It will be the first phase of a planned expansion programme, targeted on the children in greatest need, which will be extended as resources allow to provide a full year of pre-school education for every child.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the announcement of new places for child care. I invite my hon. Friend to inform the House how


those proposals link with the national child care strategy. Does my hon. Friend agree that every opportunity that is provided for the young people of Northern Ireland and their families is an opportunity denied to the paramilitaries?

Mr. Worthington: Well spoken. I agree that this is just the first phase of implementing our national child care strategy. We will be looking for contributions from the private sector for child care provision. We will be looking at the use of lottery funding for after-school provision and at using European provision for the extension of early excellence centres. We have to put more money into training for child care and, in all that, we have to bring together the health, education and voluntary sectors.

Mr. Beggs: I welcome the additional 2,000 places. However, does the Minister accept that there is less opportunity for access to nursery education in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in Great Britain, despite the fact that we have good quality nursery education? Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will seek to accelerate the rate at which nursery places are created in Northern Ireland so that there is parity of opportunity for our young children?

Mr. Worthington: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his expression of pleasure at the expansion of over 20 per cent. in nursery education this year. I doubt whether he could find anywhere else that is seeking to expand by over 20 per cent. in a single year. Over the coming months we will be seeking, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, to provide a full service for families and young children in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Moss: Any increase in funding for education is to be warmly welcomed on both sides of the House. Does the Minister agree that it is the duty of his Department to maximise the funding receipts to individual schools? If that is the case, why is he proposing to switch funding for the voluntary grammar schools from his Department to the education and library boards? Does he not realise that that will result in less money going to the classroom and the imposition of a totally unnecessary layer of bureaucratic control and interference.

Mr. Worthington: The hon. Gentleman should get in touch. He left us with an absurd system of funding. He left us with seven different ways of funding schools for a population of 1.6 million people. That is unacceptable, and we are moving to a basis of totally fair funding. If children are in schools that have equal qualities and equal characteristics, they will be funded equally throughout Northern Ireland.

Waste Disposal and Recycling

Kate Hoey: If she will make a statement on her policy on waste disposal and recycling. [26867]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Government are currently preparing a waste strategy for Northern Ireland which will set out their long-term policies for waste management.

Kate Hoey: Is the Minister aware that the small landfill site at Cottonmount, Mallusk, and the huge extension

planned both break the current draft EU landfill directive? Does he agree that, at this stage, it would be ill advised to give permission for that extension, as it clearly breaks the directive? Would he ask the Minister responsible, Lord Dubs, to visit the area and its residents—not talk just to UK Waste Management Ltd.—and to smell the smells from the dumps which the people of that area have to put up with?

Mr. Murphy: I certainly take into account what my hon. Friend says, and give her my fullest assurances that I will relate her point to my noble Friend Lord Dubs. We will undoubtedly get back in touch with her.

Mr. Forsythe: Does the Minister agree that it is not good planning simply to pick a quarry in the middle of a village and fill it full of rubbish? Does he further agree that it would be advisable to take the problems of dumping in old or former quarries into consideration and to check the roads? Apparently, traffic volume has not been taken into account, even in relation to planning permissions.

Mr. Murphy: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the matter, which affects his constituency. I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Dubs will take into account the points that he has made.

Tourism

Siobhain McDonagh: What assessment she has made of the importance of the tourist sector to the Northern Ireland economy; and if she will make a statement. [26868]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): During 1996, tourism contributed £206 million to the Northern Ireland economy. Estimates suggest that the figure will decline to £202 million for 1997. That accounts for approximately 2 per cent. of Northern Ireland's gross domestic product and helps to sustain 12,500 full-time jobs in the industry.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am sure that he agrees that Northern Ireland is a beautiful place to visit for a holiday and much under-used as a tourist destination because of the problems with peace in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that the message for the tourism industry, as for all sectors of the economy, is that they will receive a huge boost if the participants at the talks can agree among themselves and if that process is successfully concluded?

Mr. Ingram: I could not agree more with those comments, for which I thank my hon. Friend. She is right: Northern Ireland is a beautiful place to visit and more people should do so. It has been calculated that, in the tourism sector alone, 20,000 extra jobs could be generated on the back of a peaceful and lasting settlement. The same potential for growth exists in other sectors of the economy. There can be no question but that peace and prosperity are inextricably linked.

Mr. Donaldson: Does the Minister agree that, if we are to attract more tourists to Northern Ireland, we need to have adequate accommodation for those tourists?


I welcome the recent investment by several hotel chains in new hotels in Northern Ireland, but will he give a commitment that smaller hotels that are locally owned and that have supported the tourist industry for years in Northern Ireland will be given adequate funding to expand their facilities to provide adequate accommodation?

Mr. Ingram: The real support for tourism would come on the back of a peaceful settlement. I know that the hon. Gentleman is doing his best to try to achieve that. It is clear that the potential for growth in the small hotel sector is crucial. As I said in response to the previous question, 20,000 additional jobs could be generated. Clearly, the Government would sympathetically consider measures to support growth in the economy; it is something that I am actively examining.

Heads of Agreement

Shona McIsaac: What representations have been made to her by the Northern Ireland political parties concerning the Government's propositions for heads of agreement. [26869]

Marjorie Mowlam: Following the publication of "Propositions on Heads of Agreement", the two Governments have tabled numerous papers, raising questions and points as to the future of each of the three strands. The parties are giving detailed consideration to the issues that have been raised and are producing their own papers, in the hope that agreement can be reached between the different positions in time for 1 May.

Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. For the benefit of the House, will she elaborate on what she regards as the next step forward, bearing in mind the joint agreement?

Marjorie Mowlam: As we begin to make progress—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I won the battle on the Opposition Benches; I will win the war on the Government Benches.

Marjorie Mowlam: In Dublin, next week and in the weeks ahead, I hope that the detail of each of the three strands—a devolved body, north-south relations and east-west relations—is discussed, so that the parties make concrete progress towards 1 May.

Mr. William Ross: Although the parties involved may understand what is in the propositions for heads of agreement, the ordinary citizen finds the language used extremely ambiguous. When will we hear very clear statements from the Government on what action they intend to take to preserve the integrity of this kingdom?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As we have said so often in the process, the future of the relationships between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and between the north and the south is in the form of the three strands that are there for discussion and debate between the parties. Nothing will be imposed. The process will move forward with the

consent of the parties, the people and Parliament. That means that, ultimately, the people's decision will be the focus of the process.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Casale: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I launched the new deal publicity campaign. Later today, I shall have further meetings with ministerial colleagues.

Mr. Casale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most unforgivable legacy of the previous Government was the huge number of young people who left school with no prospect of finding work? Will he ensure that as many employers as possible support our new deal programme, giving young people the chance that they deserve and showing the whole country the massive difference between the values of a Tory Government and a Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: Yes. Already under the new deal arrangements—although it is currently simply being piloted—thousands of young people are being interviewed and referred to employers, and already many of them are now in jobs. Many of those young people have never had any chances in life. We have already signed up 800 employers to the new deal, and we hope that—because of our just—launched campaign—many more will join us. It is a great tribute to all those who believe that the problem has to be tackled that employers, Government and local people are all working together to create a better Britain.

Mr. Hague: When the Lord Chancellor says that the Human Rights Bill will lead to a privacy law, does the Prime Minister accept his judgment?

The Prime Minister: No, it will not lead to a privacy law. The incorporation of the European convention on human rights allows us to claim in this country what we would otherwise have to claim in Europe.

Mr. Hague: The Lord Chancellor, when asked whether the Bill would lead the courts to develop a law of privacy, said yes. He said that in black and white. Now the Prime Minister contradicts him. [Interruption.] It is here; he can have a look at it. There are endless comments on the matter from the Lord Chancellor. There are enough comments on it from the Lord Chancellor for him to paper his apartment with them. Even the Home Secretary is laughing at that. Does the Prime Minister think that the Lord Chancellor was wrong? Is he contradicting the Lord Chancellor? Cardinal Wolsey could have warned the Lord Chancellor about that.

The Prime Minister: No; I have already made the position quite clear. I suspect that the Home Secretary was laughing at the right hon. Gentleman and not with him.

Mr. Hague: The Home Secretary laughs with me more than the Prime Minister would like to think. The Prime


Minister keeps saying that he is opposed to a privacy law, but he continues to introduce one. Although we are used to him supporting one thing at one time and another thing at another time, it is a novelty even for him to support and oppose the same thing at the same time. Will he now agree to amend the Human Rights Bill so that there is no risk of its introducing a back-door privacy law?

The Prime Minister: We do not believe that that is the case. We are already, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, consulting the newspaper industry and others on the issue. I re-emphasise that it is important to understand that the European convention on human rights already applies but that people have to go to Europe. Under our legislation, people will be able to litigate under it in our courts. The Bill therefore takes back rights from Europe and brings them to this country. That is why it should be supported by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hague: If the Prime Minister is so sure of that, why is he not able to convince his own Lord Chancellor? Why is he not able to convince his own tutor that that is the case? If the Government want a privacy law, let us have it fully considered and debated. If we are not to have a privacy law, and if the Government do not want one, let us make that clear. If it is not going to be brought in by the back door, why not put a lock on the door and amend the Bill as proposed?

The Prime Minister: As I have already told the right hon. Gentleman, we are considering the points that have been made by the newspaper industry and others, but it is not the case that the Lord Chancellor has said that he is against self-regulation. On the contrary, he has said that he is in favour of it. However, the Bill incorporating the convention does far more than simply address issues relating to the press, privacy or the rest of it; it allows people for the first time in this country to litigate in the courts and say that the Government must act in accordance with fundamental rights. I should have thought that that was something that the Conservative party would support.

Mr. Hague: A lot of that was very interesting, but it was nothing to do with the question that I was asking the Prime Minister. At one point in his answer, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would consider the representations that had been made. Will he confirm, therefore, that the Government will consider amending the Human Rights Bill to make sure that there is no risk of a back-door privacy law coming into force through it? Will he confirm that he is considering that?

The Prime Minister: We have already confirmed that we are listening to the representations being made to us. We confirmed that a long time ago. It is important to realise, as I say, that the Bill does far more than simply deal with these issues; it deals with a range of other questions, too. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman still cannot bring himself to say that he supports the incorporation of the convention into British law.

Mr. Hague: It is a bizarre situation when the Lord Chancellor says that we are to have a privacy law and the Prime Minister denies it. It is a shame that the Prime

Minister does not take the Lord Chancellor seriously when the Lord Chancellor takes himself so seriously. Is it not wrong to say that he opposes something while actually introducing it, to introduce a form of censorship under cover of human rights, and to speak of the rule of law while introducing the rule of lawyers? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least consider amending the Bill to deal with that point?

The Prime Minister: Frankly, it was not that great a question the first time the right hon. Gentleman asked it, and it has now been asked six times. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered it—I answered it the first time. We are in favour of self-regulation, the Lord Chancellor is in favour of self-regulation, and this is yet another example of the right hon. Gentleman beginning a campaign with no purpose and no conviction.

Mr. Borrow: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger felt by my constituents in the village of Tarleton? Under the local plan adopted when the council was Conservative controlled, and under the planning guidelines of the previous Tory Government, the village faces the prospect of the erection of several hundred executive homes in Coe lane. Does my right hon. Friend agree that planning guidelines should deal not only with the number of new homes required but with the mix of owner-occupied and rented properties and of low-cost and more expensive properties?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I do agree with that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the previous Conservative Government carried on building on green-field sites, but now that the Conservatives are in opposition, they tell us that they would never dream of doing such a thing. In fact, there is now more green belt than there was before 1 May and more brown-field site building. My hon. Friend is also right to say that we need the right mix of housing. That is precisely why, on coming to power, this Government released £900 million-worth of capital receipts—that money will allow local authorities to build homes for people again.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister have any worries about the fact that around 40 per cent. of Britain's media is in the hands of a single dominant proprietor?

The Prime Minister: There are rules that deal with that. Those rules have been properly set out and should be applied objectively by the relevant bodies. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the amendment in the Lords on Monday night. I do not believe that that is the right way to deal with the issue. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative Opposition are wrong.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister tell us the right way to deal with the issue? Let me tell the Government what they are doing in their approach to it. They seem to say that, when it comes to competition, dealing with newspapers is the same as dealing with tins of beans. It manifestly is not. Vibrant media are vital to a healthy democracy. Opinion as diverse as the Confederation of British Industry, the ex-head of the Office of Fair Trading and many senior Labour Back Benchers believe that the Competition Bill is not strong enough to cope with


the abuse of market power through media ownership. Is the Prime Minister prepared to consider any action to strengthen that Bill to cope with those fears? Will he assure us that he will be prepared to take whatever action is necessary to make sure that they are never realised?

The Prime Minister: The question proceeds on the assumption that the Bill does not strengthen existing powers. It does.

Mr. Ashdown: It does not.

The Prime Minister: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Let me explain the position. The Bill brings our law into line with that in the rest of Europe. It specifically provides that there cannot be abuse of a dominant market position. The Office of Fair Trading can investigate all sorts of things under that provision, including predatory pricing.
The amendment in the House of Lords the other evening is wrong. It would result—this is why it is bizarre that it is supported by the Conservative party as well—in newspapers being prevented from competing against each other. They are perfectly entitled to compete against each other. If there is abuse of dominant market position, it can be investigated by the Office of Fair Trading. Under the Bill, there will be further powers to deal with that. I do not think that the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords is right in principle or the right way to deal with the problem.

Housing (London)

Mr. Corbyn: What meetings he has held with representatives of housing groups in London; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I have not held meetings since the election specifically with representatives of housing groups in London. We are engaged in a programme that will help much of housing in London, particularly by the release of capital receipts.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 28,000 London families living in temporary accommodation and that 30 per cent. of housing benefit expenditure in London goes on supporting expensive private rented accommodation? Particularly for inner-London boroughs, the release of capital receipts is eaten up entirely by the enormous backlog of important capital repairs. No new building or purchasing is taking place. If we are to conquer the scourge of homelessness in London, central Government must be prepared to release money to build and buy homes so that people—including children growing up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—have a decent home or flat to live in.

The Prime Minister: Of course I share those objectives. It is true that, particularly in London, though not always elsewhere, the release of capital receipts is primarily being used to refurbish existing properties. That plays a part in allowing us to reduce homelessness in London, because the properties that are properly refurbished can then be used for homeless people. As we are able to release further sums, we will help councils in London and elsewhere to provide new homes for people.
Under the first tranche of money, I think that I am right in saying that 4,000 new homes will be built across the country. That is an improvement on the previous position.
In relation to homelessness—particularly among young people—one reason why we want to put the new deal through is to ensure that some of those young people are given help in getting housing and the chance to gain a skill or an apprenticeship that allows them to earn money and provide for themselves. The Government are introducing a range of measures to tackle those problems.

Engagements

Mr. Gibb: Does the Prime Minister accept that his Human Rights Bill would give unelected judges the power to create a privacy law and leave this Parliament with just a 90-minute debate to rubber-stamp those judicial decisions? Is that not both undemocratic and unacceptable?

The Prime Minister: The answer to that is no. The British courts would be perfectly entitled, as, indeed, the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, to develop a law of privacy in relation to common law—never mind the European convention on human rights. I am informed by the Home Secretary of the fact that the shadow Lord Chancellor has supported incorporation of the European convention.

Mr. Barron: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, if any changes have to be made to the national concessionary fuel agreements for retired miners and/or their widows owing to European legal requirements, the interests of those concessionaires will be looked after?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to raise that as a specific problem. It comes about as a result of European directives, and will mean that, if the directives are carried through, as is being proposed at present, there could be a problem for people with concessionary fuel allowances. Obviously that is a problem for many of my hon. Friend's constituents, and for mine, too. That is precisely why my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has announced that he will look at all the problems associated with it. In the meantime, people will continue to get the full concessionary fuel allowance. We will announce what we can do about it at a later stage.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Lord Chancellor that the Press Complaints Commission should be given power of prior restraint over what newspapers can publish?

The Prime Minister: Again, the Lord Chancellor did not say that. What he actually said was that there should be self-regulation. Of course, the Press Complaints Commission is entitled to have the self-regulation that it wishes. This is another pretty pathetic campaign on behalf of the old Tory party. Like most of their other campaigns, it is based on a lot of trivia and mistaken premises.

Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that all the opposition groups in Iraq, including representatives of the Kurds, are totally and completely opposed to the use of military action? Will he give an assurance that the Russian


peace proposal, about which Tariq Aziz wrote to me this morning, will be considered by the Security Council and not rejected by the Americans, and that no force will be used other than by the authority of the Security Council? Is he aware of the puzzlement and disappointment that Britain, as one of the permanent members of the Security Council and president of the European Union, and with its role at the heart of the Commonwealth, should appear to be following slavishly instructions from Washington?

The Prime Minister: We are simply not going to agree on this, but let me tell my right hon. Friend why we are doing what we are doing. It is nothing to do with following the line from Washington—slavishly or in any other way. It is to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein has been developing weapons of mass destruction. As a condition of the Gulf war ceasefire, he was obliged—and agreed—to destroy all such weapon-making capability. Inspectors went in and uncovered literally thousands of weapons, vast biological warfare plants. They have uncovered quite enough to make us deeply alarmed at the prospect of Saddam Hussein's ever getting that capability.
He has now decided to try to prevent the inspectors carrying out their duty. It is our duty, I believe, in order to enforce the long-term security and peace of the world, to bring him back into compliance with the UN resolutions, and ensure that he is not able to develop weapons of mass destruction. I believe that that is right. We will of course search for a diplomatic solution, but Saddam Hussein should not be in any doubt—nor should anybody else—that, if we are forced to take military action to bring him back into compliance, we will do so.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Almost one in four children attend a school with a religious affiliation. Will the Prime Minister accept the amendment to the Human Rights Bill that safeguards the rights of those schools to select teachers who share the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faith of the school, and reject teachers whose way of life and faith are incompatible with the religious ethos of the school?

The Prime Minister: That is a perfectly fair point. I understand from the Home Secretary that, although this has not been a problem up to now, as a result of the concerns that have been raised, we are none the less considering it in the context of the Bill. I know that many families like to have their children educated in accordance with the religion in which they believe. That is something which we obviously wish to protect. We shall look at the concerns that have been raised and make our statement on it as soon as we can.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the reasons for the welcome decision to rethink the plans for increasing the waiting time for jobseeker's allowance—and would not the application of the same logic lead to the conclusion that it would be wise to defer cuts in lone parent benefits?

The Prime Minister: No, Madam Speaker, I am afraid that I cannot agree. The reason for the decision in relation to the jobseeker's allowance is that it forms part of the review of welfare provision that we are now making. In relation to lone parents, it is important for my hon. Friend

to understand—I hope that she will take the point on board, as well as acknowledging the fact that she disagrees with the original decision—that some £200 million has been set aside for initiatives that help lone parents off benefit and into work, and that many of them up and down the country are already taking advantage of that. The situation does not fall into the same category as the jobseeker's allowance provisions, which we shall examine as part of the review of welfare.

Mr. Brooke: Why, in the Prime Minister's vocabulary, is so little use made of the word "freedom"?

The Prime Minister: Actually, I do use the word a lot. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman has raised it, because when I was asked to give a speech in Washington on the values of the centre left, I described them as freedom, justice and progress. Those are the values that those on the Government Benches believe in; it is a pity that the Conservative party today—I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is rather out of tune with much of it—does not believe in those values.

Mr. Savidge: Does the Prime Minister accept the fact that, as the Government inherited from the Tories a division between rich and poor comparable with that in the time of Charles Dickens, a major test of the achievements of this Administration will be our success in tackling social exclusion, in restoring hope to those in real need and in building a society united in common purpose and shared values?

The Prime Minister: Since coming to power on 1 May, we have had the £3.5 billion programme of welfare to work, the extra £2 billion worth of spending in our hospitals and schools, the £1.2 billion programme of school repairs and the extra £200 million of help for pensioners with their fuel bills. There can be no clearer demonstration of the values of a Labour Government, designed to help the whole country, and the Tory party, designed to help a privileged few.

Mr. Norman: I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that in this country the BBC plays an important role in the media and in press freedom. Will he therefore tell us whether he agrees with the remarks reported to have been made by his official spokesman, Alastair Campbell, to the effect that the BBC is a dumbed-down, bureaucratic and overstaffed institution, or with the early-day motion reportedly signed by 40 of his Back Benchers that describes those remarks as childish and offensive?

The Prime Minister: I yield to no one in my affection for the BBC, but whatever remarks were made by my press spokesman, they were a lot less than I remember people such as Norman Tebbit making in the 1980s.

Mr. McGrady: May I ask the Prime Minister to take a personal interest in the future of Downe hospital in my constituency, and to ensure that the Government's policy on equal opportunity and equality of provision and accessibility is applied to the people of Down and Mourne? Will he ensure that the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland is not unduly


influenced by the medical mafia of the so-called "platinum two" hospitals in Belfast, or by the desk doctors in the Department?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am not in a position to give him a statement about the particular hospital. However, I have heard what he has said and so has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I shall correspond with him and set out our position.

Mrs. Ewing: In the context of the benefits integrity project, is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that, of the more than 40,000 people who have been reassessed, 20 per cent. of those eligible for disability living allowance have had their allowance either stopped or reduced, and only 2.5 per cent. have had it increased? Is there any integrity in pretending that that is not Treasury-led?

The Prime Minister: This, obviously, was a project that we inherited, but it is important that we ensure that people are claiming the right benefit and it is entirely right to make proper checks to see that that is the case. The hon. Lady will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announce changes to the procedure to ensure that we do not put at risk any of those people who are genuinely in need of benefit and in receipt of that benefit. Of course we will keep the matter under clear review, but it is right that we ensure that only people fully entitled to benefit receive it.

Mr. Levitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever problems unemployed people face—and there are many—their best chance of escaping their situation, be they young, long-term unemployed, disabled or lone parents, is by acquiring modern, appropriate and saleable skills?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, which is why we have provided additional money to help lone parents to acquire the skills they want. An additional £200 million has also been provided specifically to help those among the long-term sick and disabled who want to get off benefit and into work. Because the number of workless households doubled under the Conservatives in the past 20 years, this is the first chance that many of those people have had for years to get back into work, lead a better life, have a higher standard of living and make a contribution to society. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, which is precisely why the welfare-to-work programme is important.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Prime Minister recall that his letter to the Prison Officers Association on 6 July 1994 received a very warm welcome from that body? Will he refresh his memory this afternoon on what he wrote, and reflect that, if full trade union rights had been restored to that body, prison officers could have taken industrial action over security on the roofs of the Maze prison, which would probably have prevented the assassination of William Wright and the consequences that flowed from that murder? Will he now fulfil the promise that he made in the letter to restore full trade union rights to the Prison Officers Association?

The Prime Minister: I really do not think that we can draw the conclusion that, if industrial action had been an

available option, the murder of Billy Wright would not have taken place. That is not right or fair. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made our position clear on industrial action by prison officers. He will also know that two reports on the Maze prison are to be published; as soon as they are, we will be able to discuss them.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the former employees of the National Coal Board, who have just secured victory—and the largest compensation award in British legal history—in their trade union-backed court case about the effects of emphysema and chronic bronchitis? Does he agree that the case illustrates the importance of trade unions in ensuring decent working conditions and social justice in the workplace?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I congratulate the many trade union officials who work throughout the country to secure justice for their people, which is why millions of people voluntarily choose to be members of trade unions in Britain today.

Mr. Robathan: Will the Prime Minister, particularly at this time of international tension, pay attention to the concerns of senior officers in the armed forces who fear that the Human Rights Bill may undermine the authority of commanding officers in the field? Will he ensure that the Bill is amended to safeguard military discipline?

The Prime Minister: I really do not believe that the Bill has any impact on commanding officers in the field. As I keep trying to explain to the Conservatives, people can already litigate under the European convention on human rights; the difference is that they have to take their cases to Strasbourg rather than to our own courts. The idea that by incorporating the European convention on human rights into law, as a vast number of European countries have, we will somehow inhibit our armed forces takes the Conservative campaign from absurdity to sublime absurdity.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity in his busy schedule to read the current issue of Country Life, in which the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Mr. William Waldegrave, predicts that there will be violent action, civil disorder and civil disobedience if the Labour Government enact a statutory right to roam? Will he tell Mr. William Waldegrave and those who think like him that such threats cut no ice with him, and that, like me, he believes that the Government should legislate for a right to roam?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say that I have seen the edition of Country Life, but it is an indication of how ridiculous some of the campaigns of the Conservative party are today. The Conservatives say that people having the right to roam or walk on moorlands on which they wish to walk will somehow put the countryside at risk. It will do no such thing. We are in discussion now as to the best way to proceed, and I believe that we can reach proper agreements on this matter. If not, the legislation is there and we intend to carry through our manifesto


commitment. As for the Conservative party threatening civil disobedience, it only shows what has happened to the party of law and order.

Mrs. Roe: Is the Prime Minister aware that last May, patients from my constituency attending the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City were waiting a maximum of 12 months for elective surgery? Today, nine months later, they are having to wait 18 months. Does the Prime Minister accept that my constituents feel that they were conned by the Labour party at the general election, as it said that waiting times and waiting lists would fall? Is this not an example of the Labour party saying one thing at a general election and doing another in office?

The Prime Minister: No, it certainly is not. The spending proposals we inherited were the spending proposals of the Government whom the hon. Lady supported. What is more, we put an extra £300 million in this year and an extra £1.2 billion for next year. We will see at the next election whether our waiting list pledge has been confirmed. We will do that. Nobody believes that the NHS would be better with a party which spent 20 years undermining it than with a party which believes in it and will now rebuild it after 20 years of Tory rule.

Speaker's Statement

Madam Speaker: I have a statement to make about departmental Question Time which should be of interest to all hon. Members and Ministers alike.
In the last Parliament, I found it necessary on a number of occasions to seek the co-operation of the House in making better progress at Question Time. I was concerned

that both questions and answers were becoming too long and that there was a growing tendency to regard Question Time as an opportunity for comment and for debate, rather than for question and answer. As a result, too few hon. Members with questions on the Order Paper could be called, and too few other hon. Members could be called to put supplementary questions.
Following my statement, there was some improvement at that time, but I now have to inform the House with regret that progress in this Parliament is significantly worse. The number of substantive and supplementary questions that I have been able to call has been further constrained. I must now renew my appeal to Ministers and hon. Members to co-operate in securing a faster-moving and more profound Question Time.
Members should bear it in mind that the primary purpose of questioning Ministers is to hold the Executive to account. Questions should relate to matters of public policy or administration for which Ministers are responsible. I have to tell Back Benchers that the purpose of a question is to obtain information or to press for action. It should not be a short speech.
As for Ministers, answers should be confined to points contained in the question, with a short explanation only when necessary to make the answer intelligible. I tell the House that there are good reasons for these and other long-established rules on questions. Members would do very well to educate themselves. They would find, if they looked at pages 295 to 305 of the 22nd edition of "Erskine May", the reasons for these rules. In essence, there is a marked distinction between Question Time and debate. What is required above all are short questions and brisk answers. In the interests of the House, I shall not hesitate to intervene if I think a question or an answer is too long, but it would be much better if the House were to discipline and regulate itself. I hope it will do so, and I look forward to the Whips from all parties seeing that all hon. Members and Ministers are informed of this statement.

North Afghanistan (Earthquakes)

Sir Alastair Goodlad: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what actions her Department is taking to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the earthquakes in northern Afghanistan and if she will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): An earthquake measuring 6.1 on the Richter scale hit northern Afghanistan at 19.37 local time—14.37 GMT—on Wednesday 4 February. We first learned of the disaster on 6 February. The most affected area is the Rustaq district in Takhar province which is located about 50 km from the border with Tajikistan. The nearest airport is at the town of Taloqan, 50 km south-west of Rustaq. A number of strong aftershocks have been reported by the local authorities and another earthquake, measuring 5 on the Richter scale was felt in the region around 3 am yesterday.
According to the local authorities in Rustaq, 26 villages are affected, of which six have been completely destroyed. The local authorities indicate that 3,680 people have died; the aid agencies' preliminary estimates put the figure at between 2,000 to 3,000. About 1,000 families are affected. The number of injured is reportedly 417, but that is likely to be an underestimate. I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the latest situation report from the United Nations Office of the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
On 9 February, we contributed $300,000, or about £180,000, immediately on the launch of a United Nations appeal for assistance. We were among the first in the world to respond. Our funds are being used by the United Nations to conduct urgent assessments and provide immediate relief for the victims. MERLIN, a UK health emergency non-governmental organisation, has already reached the affected area and is providing medical supplies on behalf of the United Nations relief effort.
Since the start of the emergency, we have been in close contact with our Afghanistan field manager based at the British high commission in Islamabad. She has kept in close contact with the relief agencies attempting to gain access to the affected region.
The European Commission Humanitarian Office—ECHO—to which we contribute, is ready to make a contribution of around £1.33 million for shelter, medical items and water supply through the International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières—MSF. ECHO has currently one delegate in Kabul and one correspondent in Taloqan to assist in the operation. Oxfam has also offered relief items to the International Committee of the Red Cross and MSF, including tents, blankets, winter clothing and water equipment. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has stockpiles of blankets, plastic sheeting and tents in Peshawar, Konduz and Termez ready for distribution. The World Food Programme has three trucks loaded with 20 tonnes of food, plastic sheeting and stoves which were due to reach Rustaq yesterday.
As the right hon. Gentleman will see, we are doing all we can, with the United Nations, to help to provide aid quickly and effectively. However, the remoteness, difficult terrain and poor weather conditions are making

aid deliveries extremely difficult. We await further assessments, including those of the United Nations disaster assessment and co-ordination team, other agencies on the ground and the International Committee of the Red Cross before considering what further assistance we might usefully provide.

Sir Alastair Goodlad: I thank the Secretary of State for her full reply. As she knows, every effort made by the Government to bring help to the victims of that terrible disaster will have the support of the whole House. May we offer our gratitude to the aid workers who are struggling to deliver help in such terrible conditions, by delivering tents, blankets and medical supplies, by seeking to deal with the shortage of clean water and the consequent disease and dehydration, and by seeking to evacuate the survivors?
Can the Secretary of State tell the House what consultations she has had with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the largest aid body in Afghanistan, about its assessment of the situation and the delivery of aid? What requests has she received from the ICRC to provide logistical support and what steps has she in mind to respond to them? She knows the problems of providing aid to areas affected by the civil war. How will her Department ensure that the warring factions in Afghanistan do not succeed in manipulating our international aid effort to their benefit?
What steps does the right hon. Lady feel are necessary to safeguard the security of aid workers, particularly British ones? Can she confirm that the Taliban, which exercises control over most of the country, announced a three-day ceasefire at the weekend because of the emergency? Will she and the Foreign Secretary use their good offices to seek to extend the ceasefire—indefinitely, if possible? Finally, can she confirm that British aid, the private aid that will be offered by the public, will go to those it is intended to reach? Can she confirm that there will be not only disaster relief but long-term relief and rehabilitation for a considerable period to come?

Clare Short: I am grateful to the right hon. Member. He is right to say that the House is united in feeling that our country should contribute to the relief of such emergencies and in taking pride in the speed with which our agencies respond. That is shared across the House. Both parties have contributed to creating that commitment.
I have not personally been in contact with the International Committee of the Red Cross, but my officials have. We have efficient procedures to move quickly as soon as we get notice of disasters. I am not personally conscious of an ICRC request for logistical support, but we work very closely with it. Some of the contributions that have been made are being delivered through it. We will remain in constant contact.
On the effect of the civil war, the earthquake occurred in the northern part of Afghanistan controlled by the Northern Alliance, not in the large part of the country controlled by the Taliban. As yet, the civil war has had no effect on getting emergency relief to earthquake survivors.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Taliban have declared a ceasefire. I am not sure that that has had an immediate effect, as I understand that there was not any fighting in that very remote area of difficult terrain.


I agree that we must ensure that we get relief to the affected people and try to ensure that there is no fighting or attempt by either side to take advantage.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the safety and security of aid workers, which is always a major concern. At the moment, the problem is getting them in. There is real difficulty with the weather, the terrain and getting the available resources to assist people in the way we should like. At present, aid workers are not in danger, but are frustrated that they cannot get there to do as much as they would like.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would provide aid in a way that would not only deal with the disaster but assist reconstruction. He is right to focus on that. The whole international system is reviewing the way in which we provide emergency and humanitarian aid to ensure that it does not paralyse into dependency communities that have been through trauma. If people become refugees, children are not educated, agriculture is not restored, and reconstruction can be prevented. We are all reviewing our procedures to try to ensure that we deliver emergency relief efficiently, but also start to consider how reconstruction can proceed immediately so that the emergency relief does not cause harm in future.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Have we offered co-operation to the Government of Iran, who, with the Red Crescent, have considerable experience in the most difficult conditions?

Clare Short: We are not directly co-ordinating our efforts. We are making a contribution through the UN system, which is organised to achieve co-ordination. That is the body which is bringing together all the resources. I understand that Iran and Britain were the two countries that moved first and sent assistance most quickly in response to the UN appeal.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Has the Minister received any requests for helicopters or thermal-imaging equipment? Has her Department learned the lesson, highlighted by the Select Committee report on Montserrat, that if it wants to get on with the job that it does well, it should not allow any interference from another Department?

Clare Short: I am not aware of any request for helicopters and thermal-imaging equipment. An emergency organisation that provides such help got as far as Pakistan. We advised it to wait because it does not help in emergencies if everyone piles into aeroplanes and turns up. No matter how well-intentioned, such action creates chaos. That organisation has now withdrawn.
As for my Department's response to emergencies, it is true that the capacity of the British Government to respond rapidly sits within my Department. It works very smoothly and very fast. When there is a need to move, Ministers are not consulted. We have delegated powers and resources available to us, and we move immediately. We can move over a weekend. There is no need to consult lots of Departments and delay our response.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It seems from my right hon. Friend's statement that it took two days for us to discover that the earthquake had occurred. Can she explain what the difficulty was?

Clare Short: I cannot explain to my hon. Friend what the difficulty was. The international system has become more efficient at responding quickly to such disasters. The earthquake was in an extremely remote place. That is the major part of the difficulty, although, of course, there are others in Afghanistan in terms of communications, governance and so on. My hon. Friend's question would have to be addressed to the United Nations system. I do not know the answer at this moment, but I will find out and write to him.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: During the Secretary of State's successful visit to Bosnia, she will have seen some of the extraordinary work done by the Royal Engineers. Has she consulted the Minister for the Armed Forces about whether it is possible to second one or two British sappers to help the aid programme? They are particularly skilled at getting the most basic emergency services organised.
Although the Secretary of State is running her programme through the United Nations, will she assure the House that, during the current British presidency of the European Union, she is co-ordinating fully with other European Governments in respect of our efforts to relieve the suffering in this appalling tragedy?

Clare Short: We discussed the contribution of the British forces this morning in the Defence Select Committee. The lesson that we and the Ministry of Defence have learnt is that, when forces are already in theatre, and if they are not engaged in preventing military conflict, they can do useful work to assist reconstruction and rehabilitation. Collaboration with the armed forces happens in certain circumstances when they are already in theatre and it is appropriate. General Pringle emphasised to me that the first priority of the armed forces was to prevent an outbreak of violence, and that, when they are successful in that, they have more time and are able to contribute to reconstruction.
We do collaborate, but it is a question of working together where it is most appropriate. I am not sure whether, in the emergency in Afghanistan, anyone has suggested bringing in the Royal Engineers. At the moment, it is thought that collaboration through the UN is the most helpful way of getting resources in quickly.
We take seriously our responsibilities in our presidency of the European Union. We have been in touch with ECHO for that reason. That is why I gave considerable details of the European Union's promised contribution to the relief effort in Afghanistan.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: How far is the disaster zone from the Taliban front line? What contingency plans are being developed with our armed forces, the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross to ensure that aid will get through if fighting starts in places where it compromises the supply routes into the area?

Clare Short: I do not know how far it is in miles, but my understanding is that fighting is not the issue in that area. It


is so remote that the fighting was not near the area. The problems are weather, terrain and distance. We need to watch the issue. If there is any problem, we shall have to resolve it, but at present all the international energy is focused on trying to get resources into the area. We have weather and geography against us rather than civil war.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, (Sir A. Goodlad) said that it would be good if, out of this crisis, some longer-term sustained assistance to Afghanistan could be provided. Although I understand that the right hon. Lady's attention, and that of her Department, are concentrated on the immediate crisis, will she give us an assurance that she has got people to think about how they might use the lessons to be learned from this disaster, perhaps to encourage the Taliban and its opponents to proceed in a more rational way to create within Afghanistan the conditions for the beginning of sustained development?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; the situation in Afghanistan is completely tragic. The fighting has gone on for such a long time that the country is full of land mines so that people cannot use their land to grow crops, and they and their children are in constant danger of injury.
I am afraid that there is no immediate prospect of a settlement. The international community has a terrible problem with the Taliban because of its resistance to the provision of equal assistance to women. The International Committee of the Red Cross had to threaten to withdraw all assistance—it is the leading agency helping people who survive injuries from land mines—until the Taliban backed down and said that assistance could be provided equally to women.
I understand that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has not had much success in dealing with the two factions and is now talking to the surrounding countries that have tended to line up behind the respective factions, as so often happens, which has extended the conflict.
The attitude of the Taliban to the provision of basic rights to women is a major problem to the international community. We all stand on the principle that there must be equal rights of assistance in the provision of our humanitarian aid. When we stand together, we appear to succeed. The UN special representative is trying to encourage talks that might lead to peace, but I am afraid that progress is not imminent.

Points of Order

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to delay the House, but I have received three packages in the post, because the postal system apparently could not find any person to whom they could be appropriately delivered. On one package it says, "Not Clerks Department" and on another it says, "Try A. Mackinlay", although I do not know why it was decided that I should receive them.
Those packages are addressed to "The Treasurer, The European Research Group, House of Commons, London SW1." They are important for two reasons. First, and probably of least importance, that group is not a registered all-party group. I would not detain the House merely to make that point and I would just pass those packages to your office, Madam Speaker, but they contain 100 cheques and a Midland bank paying-in book for an account in the name of "The Danish Referendum Campaign Account."
The second, more serious point is that someone is running a fund-raising exercise from the House for that group, which could bring the House into disrepute. It means that those who cannot command a majority in the House to scupper the Amsterdam treaty are trying to use the Danish people as a surrogate to do so. That should not happen through the offices of the House.
I shall pass the packages to your office, Madam Speaker, because I genuinely do not know to whom they belong; nor does the postal system or the Clerks Department. It is wrong that such fund raising should be conducted from the House; the fact that it coincides with our presidency of the European Union is acutely embarrassing to the United Kingdom. I hope that the Danish people will note that there are people in the United Kingdom who want to use them to scupper the Amsterdam treaty.

Madam Speaker: So many things land up in my office most days, but this is extremely serious and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will hand those packages to my office so that I can look through them.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This afternoon you made a statement with which all of us concur. Can you perhaps advise me whether at future Prime Minister's Question Times the length of time taken up by the Leader of the Opposition will be specified, no matter how long-winded his questions, or will he be allowed to ask a set number of questions? Today, we heard seven minutes of rubbish.

Madam Speaker: Today, the Leader of the Opposition used his entitlement to ask six questions. I have calculated the number of questions answered at Prime Minister's Question Time today, and the answer is particularly good because the Prime Minister answered 28 questions in half an hour, which is much more than most Ministers achieve in that time.

Motor Accident Injury Compensation

Dr. Desmond Turner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure compensation for persons injured as a result of road traffic accidents.
The Bill seeks to remedy a long-standing problem that has been addressed by the House several times since the second world war. The last time was when a ten-minute rule Bill was introduced by Lord Janner when he was a Member of the House. It was the subject of a consultation paper in 1991 by the Lord Chancellor's Department; a report with recommendations followed.
People who are injured in accidents face many problems. First, they can wait a long time for settlement. A wait of at least one year is common, as is a delay of two years, and the period can be much longer. Uncertainty surrounds the settlement; the injured person may not get a settlement or it may be minimal or, at the extreme end of the range, it could be a large and punitive settlement, incorporating heavy damages. Some people are excluded from the possibility of a settlement because of the limitations of their insurance or because they are the drivers of a car and they are not covered.
I believe that the inequality of entitlement to compensation is a problem which is recognised by the entire insurance industry. Many lawyers agree that it occupies a great deal of time in the courts, and much expense, which does not help the people who need compensation.
I should like to describe a case that has arisen in my constituency and has prompted me to bring in the Bill. I shall mention no names, both to protect the sensitivities of the family and because a criminal case is involved which is sub judice. A young woman, eight months pregnant, together with her husband, her sister and her sister's husband, were travelling in their car after doing their week's shopping—just driving along, perfectly innocently, on their side of a country road in East Sussex—when they were hit head on by a large van which had crossed to the wrong side of the road.
As a consequence of that accident, the woman lost her baby and was critically injured. She survived, but at the expense of the loss of her uterus, and is obviously no longer able to bear children. Her sister was also critically injured and has survived only with deformities to her leg, and all the family were unable to work for a long time. In addition to suffering considerable physical and emotional trauma, they suffered great financial hardship and ended up in heavy arrears with their mortgage; but for the understanding of the building society, they might even have lost their home.
That accident happened in June 1996, and the family are still awaiting any compensation. The case also illustrates a problem that arises because, despite the fact that the causality of the accident in terms of what happened is crystal clear—police accident investigation reports leave absolutely no doubt about the cause of the accident—there was a question over liability, because the driver of the van is entering the defence of inculpability, asserting that, because of insanity as a result of a brain lesion, he was not responsible for his actions.
Therefore, the insurers—the insurers of a public body—are denying liability, pending the outcome of the case. If the van driver sustains the defence of insanity, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, and the only recourse that that family will have is to the good will of an insurance company for it to make an ex gratia settlement. I submit to the House that such situations are entirely unacceptable. That is what I seek to remedy.
Previous exercises in this area have been conducted along two lines. One is the no-fault compensation system, such as that in New Zealand. That system is flawed, as one must opt either for no-fault compensation and eschew any chance of proceeding through the courts, in the hope of winning a larger settlement, or forget about no-fault compensation and proceed through the courts. I think that it is wrong to force people to make that choice.
The alternative, on which the Bill is based, is to make personal injury cover a compulsory element and a statutory part of all motor insurance policies, in the way that third party liability is now. That would also provide for rapid interim settlements which would sustain people through difficult periods following accidents, such as that endured by the family that I have described. It would also place the emphasis on the principle of causality rather than liability in terms of settlements between insurance companies. When the issue of automatism arose—for example, if a driver suffered a heart attack and was not in control of his vehicle for that reason—an insurance company could not deny liability because causality would be the determining factor.
I make no apologies to the House for not drafting the Bill in its final form. Hon. Members will be aware that I do not have to do that until the Bill is presented for Second Reading. I am anxious that the measure should receive as much consensus support as possible. Therefore, I shall be grateful for any advice and consultation that hon. Members may offer during the next three or four weeks while I am drafting the Bill. I am working from a set of principles, which I shall be glad to discuss with any hon. Member who has experience in this area or advice to offer. I want the measure to succeed.
My Bill has the one simple aim of ensuring that every person who is injured as a result of a road traffic accident is compensated for the injuries received, irrespective of his or her role in causing the accident. The only exceptions that might be considered are persons driving without insurance or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Desmond Turner, Mr. Michael Jabez Foster, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews and Dr. Michael Clark.

MOTOR ACCIDENT INJURY COMPENSATION

Dr. Desmond Turner accordingly presented a Bill to ensure compensation for persons injured as a result of road traffic accidents: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed [Bill 121].

Local Government Finance (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1998–99 (Revised) (HC 541), which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
It may also be convenient to discuss the other two motions on the subject:
That the Limitation of Council Tax (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1998–99 (Revised) (HC 542), which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (No. 2) (Wales) 1998 (HC 504), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
The local government finance report contains my decisions on the local government revenue settlement for 1998–99. The report replaces the original report, which was laid before the House on 2 February. A small error in the standard spending assessment calculations came to light last week and had to be corrected. The relevant notional amounts report sets out the upward adjustments that I propose to make to local authorities' budgets for 1997–98 to reflect the return of the £37 million that was taken from the 1997–98 settlement to fund the nursery voucher scheme.

Mr. Michael Ancram: It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could explain the correction. The documents are fairly complicated, and trying to compare one with the other is a lengthy process.

Mr. Davies: It is a small, technical correction. Even if I took the time to explain it, the right hon. Gentleman might find that my explanation was deficient. I assure him that the change is minor and technical. I shall certainly write to him in great detail drawing his attention to it, but I assure him that the technical change will have no impact on the substance of the debate. If the right hon. Gentleman wants further details, perhaps he could say so in his reply to my opening speech and I shall happily send him details of the change.
The relevant notional amounts, which I have set out in the reports, provide a fair and consistent basis for calculating capping limits for 1998–99. The report has also been revised because it refers to the finance report. None of the figures in it has been amended. The special grant report sets out the grant allocations that I propose to make to local authorities to help them improve food safety standards in line with Professor Hugh Pennington's recommendations following the fatal outbreak of E. coli food poisoning in central Scotland in 1996.
I have three main messages for the House. First, my settlement proposals this year give Welsh local government an increase in spending power of about double the increase that was provided by the previous Government for 1997–98. Secondly, the formula for distributing resources between local authorities has been agreed with the Welsh Local Government Association. I know that there has been concern over the distribution arrangements since reorganisation in 1996.

Mr. Barry Jones: rose—

Mr. Llew Smith: rose—

Mr. Davies: I shall happily give way to my hon. Friends, but perhaps they would allow me to finish

the sentence. There has been concern over the distribution arrangements since reorganisation in 1996, and I am tackling that by commissioning jointly with the Welsh Local Government Association an in-depth review of the formula.

Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for the best settlement for perhaps 19 years. Is he aware of the dismay in my constituency about the closure of the factory known as Optec DD in the township of Buckley, where more than 70 jobs are to go? I think it is the consequence of financial upsets in the Pacific rim. The company is Japanese. Can he help my constituents? Will he and the Welsh Development Agency make up an urgent action plan?

Mr. Davies: I can confirm that I am aware of that distressing news, principally because my hon. Friend lobbied me long and hard last night and put a forceful case on behalf of his constituents. I assure him that I shall be in urgent contact with the Welsh Development Agency to see what assistance can be given.

Mr. Smith: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the total settlement is 4.8 per cent. while the settlement for Blaenau Gwent, one of the poorest communities in Wales, is 3.8 per cent. When we disregard ring-fenced services, the other services get a percentage increase of 1.3 per cent. Can the Secretary of State tell my local authority which of those services are to be cut? Will he also comment on the fact that, some 30 years ago, he and I used to attend the same Labour party young socialist branch, both of us arguing that investment should go where the need is greatest? I still believe in that philosophy—does my right hon. Friend believe? It is relevant in relation to the distribution of this grant, particularly to Blaenau Gwent.

Mr. Davies: I well remember the time that my hon. Friend and I were members of the young socialists. We argued vigorously for the election of a Labour Government and for that Government to be true to their election promises. I still hold that view and I know that, by and large, my hon. Friend does too.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: rose—

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) asked a couple of additional questions with which I should like to deal. I shall take other interventions because I know that some of my colleagues want to press constituency matters.
I am aware of the problems in Blaenau Gwent. There is no getting away from the fact that it is facing difficulties. However, it is not for me to second-guess the local authority. It is elected by the people of Blaenau Gwent and they must choose their own priorities. I can tell my hon. Friend that I have met representatives of the local authority—the leader came to see me last week. On Friday, I met representatives of the principle trade union and I have discussed and explained the position facing the local authority.
It is true that that local authority has had some difficulties, but I must tell my hon. Friend two things. First, the local authority was party to the overall settlement and to the agreement that was arrived at by the


Welsh Local Government Association. Secondly, it did not dissent from it, and we must accept that, in an overall package, there are winners and losers.
The standard spending assessment for Blaenau Gwent shows a reduction this year, but the damping grant, which is the mechanism I am using to ensure that resources are put into places of greatest need, has been increased by 20 per cent. Over £1 million extra has gone in to Blaenau Gwent to help with the problem of resource allocation.
I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about the fact that some local authorities are facing difficulties. Blaenau Gwent is one, as is Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is present.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Very much so.

Mr. Davies: Well, I shall make a pre-emptive strike. I acknowledge the difficulties in Merthyr Tydfil, Neath and Port Talbot and Rhondda, Cynon, Taff. It is for that reason that I want to see a reworking of the formula. I have the agreement of the Welsh Local Government Association that officials of the Welsh Office will sit down with officials and members of the Welsh Local Government Association to rework the formula so that we can iron out the worst of the anomalies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent made a fair point, but the local authority has done as well as can be expected in the circumstances. It is party to the agreement, and we are trying to work to improve the formula in future years.

Mr. Llwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the difficulties in Conwy, Gwynedd and other semi-rural unitary authorities? I want him to confirm that three major issues will be within the brief of the review: first, the rurality aspect; secondly, the sparsity aspect; and thirdly, the increase in day population in places popular with tourists—that is totally ignored at the moment. In my home village of Betws-y-Coed, the winter population is 500 and the summer is 12,000. That is just a snapshot of the problem and it should be included in any sensible formula.

Mr. Davies: I do not want to be too prescriptive about the terms of the review. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. I accept the value of the arguments that he is pressing. The central problem facing local government is the weight to give to deprivation as opposed to rurality. That issue consumed much of the time between May and September last year, when the formula was being reworked. In the autumn of last year, I asked for the formula to be reworked because I did not believe that the balance was right and that that was leading to problems in the more deprived areas. I take the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but it is for local authorities themselves to decide, through the WLGA, the review's terms of reference. However, his points will be taken into account.
Conwy has had an increase of 4.7 per cent. this year, so it has not done badly. [Interruption.] It seems that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is now assisting you, Madam Speaker, in saying who I should give way to.

Madam Speaker: No. I think that the Secretary of State's own Back Benchers were keen to ensure that he realised that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was trying to intervene.

Mr. Davies: There we are. If the right hon. Member for Devizes will forgive me, I shall take an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I have to take interventions one at a time.

Mr. Alan Williams: My right hon. Friend will recognise that some authorities were more enthusiastic about the formula than others, but all of them, including mine, went along with it in a spirit of good will, Will he bear it in mind that we are losers because we have three of the most deprived wards in the whole of Wales; we suffer from the same problems as Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr? Will he confirm that the formula's revision cannot help us next year and will not help us even in the year after that: it is going to be put to the assembly in 1999, so we will have to wait until the year 2000–01 to achieve any redress of the current imbalance?

Mr. Davies: There are two points. First, the local authority that my right hon. Friend represents, Swansea, has done reasonably well out of the settlement. It has received an increase as a result to the damping grant, which, as I have said, is our mechanism for giving added assistance to areas of deprivation. He rightly makes a constituency point, but, in cash terms, Swansea has received an increase of £1.9 million in damping grant alone, as well as an overall increase as part of the settlement, so it has not done badly. Many other authorities would argue that they have done worse.
The review is likely to take a long time, because it is a complex exercise. We have to take many issues into account, including the views of local authorities. My right hon. Friend knows that Swansea is one of the leading local authorities in Wales. If Swansea and the WLGA come to me in the summer of this calendar year and say, "We have come up with a magic formula that addresses these problems; can we apply straight away?", I would be happy for them to do so.
It so happens that the exercise is complex. It will be long and it is therefore not likely to produce a result until the year that my right hon. Friend mentions.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I was not trying to conduct the right hon. Gentleman's business. Out of courtesy, I was pointing out merely that sometimes it is difficult for Ministers to see an hon. Member trying to intervene behind them.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for telling us that the review will now take place. Will he ask the people who will conduct the review—this is an old chestnut of mine—to try to produce a formula that is at least comprehensible to people other than the most expert in this sector? As we do not, at present, have that review, will he explain why, on page 2 of the local government finance report, paragraph 3.2 on the distribution of revenue support grant sets out two qualifications to which his determination is subject? I have examined those qualifications closely and I cannot see any difference between them. Perhaps he will explain why we have those two different qualifications.

Mr. Davies: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, it is my desire to ensure that the review's outcome is clear


and understandable. I assure him that the message that he conveys is a message that I have conveyed to local government and to officials who advise me professionally but tirelessly on the intricacies of local government finance. I shall ask the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who will reply to the debate, to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, because my hon. Friend will have a chance to consider that paragraph. I do not have the opportunity to consider the precise point at this moment, but I know that he will give the right hon. Gentleman a full and comprehensive reply.
On the third main message, I am putting in place a scheme to limit council tax increases, which will be funded partly through an additional £6 million that I am making available at the request of the WLGA.
There are some important messages there. We have agreement, it is a good settlement—it is much better than last year's—and additional resources are available to local government this year.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The right hon. Gentleman has reached capping—a subject on which the Welsh Office has been quite prescriptive. Does he see any end to it, particularly as ring-fencing in education is being introduced? More funds for education are, of course, very welcome, but ring-fencing hamstrings local authorities in providing adequate resources.

Mr. Davies: I would not use the word "hamstring". The Government's intention is certainly to put extra resources into education, and, later in my speech, I shall specifically deal with that point. I have asked the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—who has direct responsibility for those matters—to ensure that the extra funds that are available this year for education are spent on education. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that those additional funds, which we have earmarked for classroom improvements, should be used on unnecessary bureaucracy or diverted into other services.

Mr. Livsey: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: I am glad that we have agreement on that point.
Certainly I want to get away from the capping regime. I think that it is unhealthy, because, at heart, it undermines democratic local government. I shall deal with that point later in my speech. If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire raises it then, I shall happily deal with it.

Sir Raymond Powell: I have read the documents sent to hon. Members by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), dealing with the money provided to local authorities to fund education. How will Ministers control how local authorities in Wales spend that money? How will spending be monitored to ensure that the money is being spent for the purpose for which it was granted?

Mr. Davies: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support in the matter. Certainly, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bridgend, has written to every local authority with details of their

precise allocation, making it clear that we expect that those additional resources will be used exclusively for education. He is also in discussions with those in local government on the best way of ensuring that that money goes directly to front-line education.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will also keep his eye on each and every local authority. If he is disappointed, I know that he will be very robust. After the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be especially robust with Bridgend if it were to step out of line. Having committed both of my Under-Secretaries of State for Wales to a course of action, perhaps I can move on to the next point.
In last year's debate, I said that I wanted local authorities to become dynamic and independent. I am now in a position to help achieve that. Nine months ago, when I came to office, I was struck by the sense of alienation within local government—which felt ignored and undervalued by the previous Administration and that its views and aspirations did not matter. Since arriving at the Welsh Office, I have made it a priority to change those perceptions and to show quite clearly that local government does matter, both to me and my colleagues and to the 3 million people in Wales who rely on local government for the services that it provides.
I am committed to working in genuine partnership with Welsh local government through the Welsh Local Government Association. In the autumn, I agreed a framework for partnership with the association that set out the basis for joint working and effective consultation. It provides the ground rules for a constructive relationship, but not a cosy or compliant one.
Partnership can help us achieve our common goal of providing the best possible service for the people of Wales. It will enable us to take a more inclusive approach to service provision and to breaking down the organisational barriers that hinder us from doing so. Services must not be treated in isolation and viewed from narrow organisational standpoints. There is a very strong link between, for example, good education and better housing, and between more effective social policy and better health. Future policy must therefore be shaped by developing a holistic approach to economic and social policy.
There will inevitably be disagreements and tensions along the way, but local government should be in no doubt that its opinions and ideas are of great value to the Welsh Office and will inform my decisions.
If the partnership is to work well, it is essential that the association is recognised as the authoritative voice of local government. I have made it clear that I should like to see the two authorities that are currently outside the association return and play their full part in the partnership process. The final decision, of course, is a matter for them, but I know of absolutely no advantage to them in remaining outside.
I shall deal now with my settlement proposals. [Interruption.] I thought that this was the most exciting part of my speech, and that is proving to be the case—total standard spending is enough to bring the roof down.
Total standard spending plans, or TSS, are my plans for local government spending. Given the overall level of resources available for public services in Wales, they are the best that can be made available. I propose to set


TSS for 1998–99 at £3,090 million. This is an increase of 4 per cent. on 1997–98. TSS comprises £352.9 million for Welsh police authorities; £2,656.6 million in standard spending assessments for the 22 local authorities; £79.3 million in specific grants; and £1.7 million in allocations to specified bodies such as the Local Government Management Board. The increase in police provision represents a rise of 3.6 per cent. on 1997–98.
The amount of central Government support—aggregate external finance, or AEF—that I propose to provide towards TSS is £2,701.9 million. This is an increase of 3.2 per cent. on 1997–98. AEF is made up of £1,799.9 million in revenue support grant; £612 million in distributable non-domestic rates; £258.8 million in specific grants, which includes £179.5 million in police grant to be paid by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; and £31.2 million for council tax reduction measures, a matter on which I was pressed earlier.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) mentioned capping. I remind him that one of the Government's key election pledges was to keep a firm grip on public expenditure, a commitment which we did not enter into lightly and which we are determined to honour. In last year's debate, I referred from the Opposition Front Bench to the high level of national debt and the public sector borrowing requirement. Instead of investing in the future, it was then accepted that public expenditure was being used to meet the social cost of the previous Government's failed economic policy. We are determined to redress that situation.
However, as a Government we are opposed to the crude and universal system of capping, introduced by the last Government, which we have inherited. We are working with the Welsh Local Government Association on the future of local government finance. That will deal with the issue of capping, and I hope to be able to produce the promised White Paper on this matter in the summer.
The provisional capping principles that I announced in December enable Welsh local authorities to increase their current year budgets by, on average, 4.8 per cent. As I said, that is double the provision made last year. Last year, the settlement for 1997–98 was a very difficult one. The current year's settlement is much better and offers a higher level of spending per head than that available to English authorities. I understand that it is perhaps not as much as some right hon. and hon. Members would wish, but, given the fact that there is a spending limit, that those allocations have to be made within the Welsh block, and that the increase is double that available for last year, I believe that it is a reasonable settlement. Most Welsh local authorities have accepted it as such.
All local authorities in Wales will be able to increase their spending by a minimum of 3.9 per cent. My capping principles for police authorities enable them to increase spending by 3.8 per cent.
I share with local government its ambitions for prosperous and secure communities, and I realise that the settlement falls short of what, in an ideal world, they would want. It means that some local authorities will have to face tough decisions. However, the 4 per cent. increase in TSS compares with a year-on-year increase in the control total for my block of 2.7 per cent.
I take this opportunity to reinforce one very important message. It is vital that all local authorities pass on their full share of the extra £50 million to schools. I very much welcome the early signs that almost all Welsh local authorities are planning to do just this. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend for his intervention. I said in reply to him that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath has made it clear that we shall monitor the position carefully.

Sir Raymond Powell: Ogmore, not Bridgend.

Mr. Davies: I was referring to the Bridgend local authority, not the parliamentary constituency. I apologise principally to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell).

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am following the Secretary of State's argument. He says that he wants all the extra resources that have been made available for education to be passed across to schools to ensure that Labour's manifesto commitment to reduce class sizes is met. The Western Mail of 5 February says that half that money will be diverted away from the targets that the Government have set to meeting the teachers' pay settlement. Would the Secretary of State care to say something about that?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman should not get too excited by what he reads in the Western Mail, which invariably gets such matters wrong. A provision was made in last year's Welsh local government estimates for the teachers' pay award. That should have come from the existing local government budget. The £50 million that is being made available should go directly to schools. I hope that local authorities will work with the Government to ensure that we get those improvements.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister aware that many local authorities feel that they are having to find that so-called ring-fenced money at the cost of other services for which they are responsible? They do not feel that the money is there to be passed on. They are having to make cuts in other areas to achieve the education targets that the Secretary of State has described.

Mr. Davies: I do not accept that. I want local authorities to regard education as their priority. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was talking about the additional £50 million that the Government made available last year. I want to make sure that that money goes directly to schools. It is important that it should, because it was made available for that purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath will keep a close eye on local authorities to ensure that it goes where we intend. We shall review the options open to us if any authority refuses to honour the terms on which those hard-won resources have been made available.
Several of my hon. Friends have raised the situation of their local authority in relation to council tax damping. The council tax reduction scheme that I propose will protect council tax payers from the continuing mismatch between spending and grant allocations, to which I have already referred, and the impact of the grant formula


changes for 1998–99. I propose to make £31.2 million available to fund the scheme. That includes £6 million of additional money, to which I have already referred.
The scheme, along with the efficiency savings that local authorities can achieve, should ensure that increases for around two thirds of council tax payers in Wales are limited to about £1 a week. Unlike the previous Government, we do not want to drive up council tax charges in Wales compared with those in England. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Devizes will tell me whether he wishes me to continue that Conservative policy, or whether he wants me to minimise the increase in charges to council tax payers in Wales, which is my policy.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: It might not be the Secretary of State's intention to drive council tax up, but is it not an inevitable consequence of aspects of Government policy, such as the rise in interest rates, which has a knock-on effect on local government debt, and the abolition of advance corporation tax?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my point. He was not in the House last year when we debated the issue. I remind him that my predecessor, in his short period as Secretary of State for Wales—he is now the leader of the Conservative party—had a deliberate policy of driving up local authority charges in Wales to bring them more into line with those in England. There are historic reasons for the differences. I am explaining that my policy is not to remove that relative advantage that we in Wales enjoy. I am just testing him to find out whether it is his desire that I revert to my predecessor's policy.
Most of the decisions on the 1998–99 settlement have been taken in the framework of an inherited system, which we are subjecting to a root and branch review. The comprehensive spending review should be completed this year, and will give us a clear picture of the priorities on which public spending will be focused. It will give us a sound basis for putting in place a new system of democratic and financial checks and balances, which will enable local government to provide and be more locally accountable for the range and quality of services which people have a right to expect.

Mrs. Betty Williams: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in this financial year, due to the situation that we inherited and as a result of the rate-capping procedure, my constituents in Conwy and Gwynedd are suffering? Indeed, the local authority has had to make cuts in education and social services. Although I welcome the increases that Conwy particularly will receive in 1998–99, is my right hon. Friend aware of its problems this year, given that my predecessor was a Minister in the Welsh Office?

Mr. Davies: I certainly would not suggest for one moment that Ministers favour their own local authorities or constituencies. If I were to do so, I know that many of my colleagues would very rapidly draw my attention to it. It would be unfair of me to suggest that my hon. Friend's predecessor, who now sits in the other place, should have been more vigorous in defending his local authority interest.
My hon. Friend's local authority has had an increase in the SSA of 4.6 per cent. for the coming financial year, which is certainly not bad in Welsh terms. It has also had

an increase of 4.7 per cent. in spending power, which is marginally higher than the Welsh average. I have been trying to make it absolutely clear that these are difficult times for local government. We have to rework the formula. There are anomalies; there is no point in me trying to deny that. I want to work out a constructive relationship.
Conwy would be well placed if it played a constructive and forceful role in reviewing the formula. I understand its difficulties given the mixed pattern of economic and social activity. It is for that authority to play a full role in the review so that the formula is better suited to meet its problems. My hon. Friend obviously makes a strong case on the part of her local authority.
A key public expectation will be that local government—along with all other public sector organizations—spends taxpayers' money in the most efficient way possible to achieve its objectives. The Government's best value initiative, with which we are making excellent progress in Wales, is fundamental to achieving better quality and more cost-effective services.
My settlement proposals give Welsh local government a fair deal in a tight public expenditure climate. They balance my responsibilities to local government with those that I have to other public services in Wales. They begin to address the problems that local authorities face, which we will be able only to address fully over the longer term. In the meantime, I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Revenue support grant debates always attract many hon. Members. Such debates are a chance to represent local concerns, raise local points and ensure that local causes are well publicized—and they are very valuable for that. They are a central part of our parliamentary life. Today's debate is obviously no exception, given the interventions so far. It is therefore a little strange to think that this is probably the last but one such debate, and the last but one chance for Members who represent Welsh constituencies to participate on behalf of their constituents—unless, of course, they stand for the Welsh assembly.
Once the Welsh assembly is in place, obviously the allocation of RSG will be a matter for that body. Although hon. Members here will still represent their constituents and legislate for them, they will no longer be able to fly the local flag as they can now.
As a revenue support grant debate junkie, after all these years I must confess that I find that rather sad. However, there is an inexorable logic behind a parliamentary majority of 179, before which I must bow. I am sure that hon. Members will make up for the impending end of such occasions with enthusiasm today, and ensure that the fine old tradition will go out not with a whimper but with a bang.
I have always seen such debates as something of a refined sort of blood sport, with the Minister as the target. I remember taking them as a Scottish Office Minister—especially, if I may say so to the junior Minister, as the Minister who had to wind up. I remember my Secretary of State adopting the same practice adopted today by the Secretary of State, of batting any difficult question on to the junior Minister to respond to at the end of the debate.
If I may offer the Under-Secretary of State some advice, I remember saying at the end of the debate that a question was so clever and so difficult that I would rather "write to the hon. Gentleman" about it. So if the junior Minister does that to me, I shall certainly understand.
The Minister has to know not only the formula by which the allocation of grant has been decided and how it works in each case, but the answers to the individual local problems that are invariably—and rightly—raised, and over which offence is always taken, in a sense, if the Minister does not seem to know the answers.
One of the consolations of opposition—they are fairly rare—is that I can ask the questions in such a debate rather than having to answer them. I have no intention of exploring the byzantine complexities of local government funding formulae. I am told that, if one does, one tends to go mad. I thought that instead I would try to ask questions that need answering, but which do not go into the depths of the formula.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I do not want tempt the right hon. Gentleman along the lines of his suggestion that he may go mad in trying to reply to questions, but if he does not intend to get involved in the question of the formula, may I assume that he agrees that the way in which it is working out for the coming year is extremely unfair for several authorities, including some of the poorest in Wales—in some of the industrial areas in the south, and especially in my county of Gwynedd? Even if he does not intend to go into the detail, does he accept the principle that there should be a stringent examination of the problem to achieve a more equitable distribution?

Mr. Ancram: I certainly agree that it is necessary not only to hold the review, which I welcome, and which the Secretary of State confirmed again today will take place, but to keep any resulting formula under constant review. In my experience of operating such formulae, criteria that may be relevant for one year, or even for one Parliament, may not be so relevant a little later.
It is such criteria that, by becoming outdated, create the unfairness that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. I would not dispute with him the fact that the formula works unfairly at the moment, and I hope that the review will go some way towards correcting that. However, I reiterate that it would be helpful if that were done in a way that we could all understand.
As I have said, local government finance is never the easiest subject to understand. In the thicket of figures and formulae, important aspects are often overlooked, and it is necessary to try to get behind the figures and find out what is really happening. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some idea of the background to some of the questions I pose.
In relation to paragraph 2 of the main report, what was the basis of the Secretary of State's determination of the core revenue support grant figure of £1,799,880,452? There must be a complex formula to produce such an exact figure—down to the last £52—but in reading the report I have not been able to find it. I have found out how the standard spending assessments are arrived at, but not the strict relationship between them and that very accurate figure for the RSG.
It would be helpful if we were told how the figure is arrived at. Whether the distribution is fair must essentially depend on the basis upon which the figure has been produced.
What representations were considered about last year's revenue support grant, and what were their results in terms of the year-on-year comparison between last year's and this year's grant? What changes were made, and what were the reasons for those changes, in practical terms rather than in terms of the formula?
I realise that, in the eyes of local authorities, the revenue support grant will never be enough, whether or not there is a review—it is in the nature of local government always to look for more than central Government is likely to provide. Nevertheless, I assume that, just as need is taken into account in the formulation of assessments—as set out in annex D to the report—some recognition is given to local need aggregated over Wales as a whole in determining the core revenue support grant figure.
What consideration was given this year to such need factors, and how were they reflected in the overall outturn in comparison with the last two years to which the Secretary of State referred? I have already asked the right hon. Gentleman that question, but I want to put it on the record. I am interested to know the difference between the two qualifications in paragraph 3, but would be very happy for the Secretary of State to write to me on that.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for the way in which he is presenting his case. The Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths)—officials and I had many meetings with Welsh local government representatives to arrive at the re-worked formula for this year. Need was one of the considerations that I wanted to be brought more heavily into the calculations to deal with the smaller urban local authorities.
As a result, Rhondda Cynon Taff, for example, has received an additional damping grant of £6.7 million; Swansea has received an increase in the damping grant of £1.9 million; Neath Port Talbot has received £2.5 million; Merthyr Tydfil more than £3 million; and Blaenau Gwent more than £1 million. There have been increases in this settlement as a result of our discussions during the past year.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, and I am pleased to have given him the opportunity to put on the record the answers to my questions. However, if those adjustments are being made within a given total figure, money is being taken from other areas. Some of the remarks that hon. Members have made today may reflect the fact that they have not been on the receiving end, but have lost out because of the adjustments. That underlines the need for a clear indication of how the determinations are made.

Mr. Ron Davies: I shall not intervene again on the right hon. Gentleman, but I agree that there have been winners and losers. The important point, which I have stressed throughout the debate, is that we have reached agreement with the Welsh Local Government Association. Even those local authorities that have not done as well


this year—because of the tilting towards deprived local authorities—agreed to the total package. The settlement represents the collective view—certainly of 20 of the 22 Welsh local authorities.

Mr. Ancram: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. I did not know that local government associations had to have a unanimous view; I tended to find that the view that was given was that of the majority, and that there were members who, for the sake of their own authorities, did not necessarily agree.
Paragraph 3.3 of the report states that, in drawing up the standard spending assessments,
the Secretary of State has assumed that there is no use of … financial reserves".
Does that mean that, in distributing revenue support grant to the principal councils, no account is taken of alterations to any outstanding debts? It appears that, in calculating SSA need, loan charges are a capital charge. Is a similar calculation made in terms of grant, or are councils left to make up the shortfall, not least that created by the expectation of a higher SSA? Is there any element that rewards thrift and penalises debt? If so, can the Secretary of State give examples?
That brings me to an important question. What is happening to the outstanding loan debt? The figures are broken down in the report, but the ones on page 18 are startling. If my calculations are correct, there is an overall outstanding loan debt of more than £2.75 billion for the principal councils alone. That is £275 million more than this year's total grant. On any view, that is a staggering figure, which requires a little more exploration.
What is the net position? The figure is described as the outstanding loan debt. Have we any indication of reserves, held on deposit or otherwise, that may be put in the balance against it? That would obviously make some difference to the weight of the figure. How does the debt figure compare with previous years? Am I right in thinking that, in 1994, the figure was £1.661 billion or thereabouts and, in 1995, £1.875 billion? Are those figures correct?
Is the figure now going up, or is it beginning to come down? How many of those councils are Labour-controlled? Do principal councils make the repayments assumed on page 18 of the report, where various assumptions are made? How does this enormous debt figure affect the public expenditure profile? It can have macro-economic effects down the road. Is the debt owed to the national loans fund, or elsewhere? Again, that would have some bearing on its macro-economic effect. Will any liability for the level of debt transfer from the Secretary of State to the assembly? In that case, will the assembly be informed of what the liability is?
How much are councils spending in their promotional efforts to persuade the Secretary of State to site the assembly in their patch? I was interested in this because the decision rests with the Secretary of State—it is his alone. Given the constant cries by local government that it is underfunded, does the Secretary of State think that that is a proper use of council tax payers' money? Will he really be persuaded by glossy promotions? Would it not be rather cheaper for him to be persuaded by cogent arguments? It certainly throws into relief the demands made of council tax payers by the councils which have incurred such expenditure.
In the interests of open government—which, I understand, is now the flavour of the day—local council tax payers should be told now what those amounts are and where they have occurred. My information is that Cardiff, Swansea and Wrexham have put huge amounts into putting together bids for the assembly. Given that Cardiff is indebted to the tune of over £219 million and Swansea to the tune of £196 million, and given that Wrexham has a poor reputation in terms of directing resources to where they are most needed—such as education—questions need to be asked on behalf of council tax payers.
I ask—in a spirit of friendship—whether those three councils are Labour-controlled. New Labour—old financial habits. Under Labour, you still pay more and you still get less. These are important questions, and I would be happy for the Minister to write to me if he does not have all the information to hand.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the introduction of the assembly is an exciting innovation in Wales, which will bring in its train considerable economic prosperity for the community which houses it? Would it not be a dereliction of duty for councils within Wales not to try their hardest to attract the assembly to their territory?

Mr. Ancram: If it were an assembly wandering around waiting to be attracted, that might make sense. However, the Secretary of State is the arbiter of where it will go. I was merely questioning whether the Secretary of State would be so easily persuaded by the spending of money on glossy advertisements, rather than by cogent argument which might cost nothing.

Mr. David Hanson: On the subject of waste, would the shadow spokesman take this opportunity to welcome the return of £37 million from the nursery vouchers scheme to local authorities next year by the Secretary of State? That scheme was a great waste of money by the previous Administration. Any allegation of waste in local government pales into insignificance when we consider the taxpayers' money—both local and national—wasted on that scheme.

Mr. Ancram: You would probably call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we were to enter a long debate on education. However, we will wait and see whether the provision of pre-school learning is achieved under the dispensation that has now been made as well as it would have been under the voucher scheme. I doubt it.
Curiosity prompts me to ask one question—what is a "centroid"? We are treated to that gem in paragraph 17 on population dispersion on page 14. We are told where to find it and what can lie between two of them, but we are not told what it is. I should be glad to know what it means before I add it to the vocabulary on my word processor.
I have outlined the basic questions that need answers, and between them they make up the broader picture, to which I now turn. The Secretary of State took the opportunity to look forward, and to say that he set great store by local government. I agree, but it is strange for him to set out his plans for the future with such vision, when all those issues will be handed to an assembly in two years' time.
Unless the Secretary of State comes clean and divulges whether he intends to stand for the assembly, I fear that his vision will be short-lived. He has a problem, as was


demonstrated again today, because he has to try to ride two horses. He said that the settlement was generous and should be welcomed. He also acknowledged the difficulties and hardships it would cause, and the serious decisions that have to be taken. His attempts to drive a path between those conflicting demands reduced the value of what he had to say.
The overall effect of the reports will be substantial council tax increases throughout Wales. It will not do for the Government to shelter behind the provisional planned public spending figures of the previous Government. A new financial year will start in April, over which this Government will have control and which will be influenced by the decisions that this Government have taken. The increases that we will see in Wales will be down to them alone.

Mr. Ron Davies: That is why there have been increases.

Mr. Ancram: Yes, but the increases are in council tax, when we look at the bottom line.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was right to point out that, since the Government took office in May, they have loaded new costs on to councils and relaxed the capping restrictions by extending the ability of local councils to translate increases in standing spending assessments into increased spending power, without a commensurate increase in the revenue support grant. Those factors will mean higher council taxes for people in Wales.
The Secretary of State said that he was not pushing up council tax. Tell that to the council tax payers of Wales. Government figures show that, if councils spend at cap, the average bill for band D will go up by £60 this year. The average increase for the whole of Wales across all bands will be £55, or a staggering 12 per cent. The Secretary of State mentioned increases of 3, 4 and 5 per cent., but the average increase will be 12 per cent. I do not remember hearing promises to that effect during the general election, but perhaps that was an oversight while the Secretary of State was telling the people of Wales to trust him.
Within the national figures are concealed some even starker local figures. Cardiff's council tax will increase by 12 per cent., or £59 more a year; Blaenau Gwent's will increase by 14 per cent., or £52 more a year; and Swansea's will increase by 15 per cent., or £65 more a year. New Labour certainly means new council tax increases.
Let us look at the new costs that the Secretary of State and his colleagues have placed on the councils. The Budget in July abolished advance corporation tax credit for pension funds, meaning that those funds will be able to claim less tax back, will have less money to invest, and will need to meet the shortfall. That amounts to an effective tax on pensions, which is now having an impact on councils. Many Welsh councils' pension funds are in deficit, and are having to take action. In any event, the change involves higher levels of employer contributions, and thus higher council taxes to meet that cost. Once again, new Labour means higher council tax.
Inflation is up from 2.5 per cent. to 2.7 per cent. under Labour. Until today, this Government have missed their target every month. That alone will have a severe effect

on many Welsh authorities, as will interest rates—also up under this Government from 6 per cent. to 7.25 per cent. All that impacts on councils with outstanding debts. That includes most of the principal councils in Wales.
New Labour, higher local government costs, higher council tax. Further tax hikes lie ahead. The current restraint on council tax increases brought about by capping is to go. The Minister responsible for local government in England told BBC's "On the Record" on 3 November last year:
It's a manifesto commitment that we will get rid of crude universal capping, and it's my job to make sure that we deliver manifesto commitments.
The Secretary of State said today that that was also his intention. Within what timetable? Is he going to increase substantially the revenue support grant to allow higher spending, or will all the effect of taking off the cap fall on the Welsh council tax payer again? There are no prizes for guessing which it will be. The interesting bit will be learning why the prospect of higher council tax was not in the famous manifesto that asked the people of Wales to trust new Labour.
Will we see other changes, only rumoured as yet, but about which I hope the Government, in pursuit of their professed belief in open government and freedom of information, will come clean this afternoon? People are asking about them.
Are the Government planning an additional tax to be levied on local businesses on top of the uniform business rate? If so, will there be any protection for already hard-pressed small businesses in Wales? Do the Government still intend to increase the number of council tax bands? That proposition drifts in and out of the picture, causing enormous concern to thousands of Welsh households that would be adversely affected by it. The Government must make their position on that clear, and they must do so now.
There have been rumours, or purported leaks, floating the idea of extra council tax benefit to meet the extra burden on that benefit of removing or changing the capping rules. Is it true that council tax payers, rather than the Department of Social Security, would have to foot the bill for such higher council tax benefits? We need the answers to those questions now. It is unsettling and alarming for councillors, residents and businesses in Wales alike to be left in the dark. It is not good enough for the Government to delay announcements on such important issues.
There are concerns about what will happen to local government, revenue support grant and council tax with the coming of the assembly. There will be a period of uncertainty and change. For example, we know that the assembly will take on the Secretary of State's responsibility for funding local government. The amount of revenue support grant is not specified by law, and will therefore ultimately be entirely at the discretion of the assembly. The Government of Wales Bill provides no protection for councils in the north, east or west from domination by the southern part of Wales. That is of concern in Wales.
Moreover, the assembly would be able to reduce the total amount of money that it gives to local authorities in Wales. It could give the funds to any other body, such as the Welsh Development Agency, or retain them for itself. More importantly, it could introduce tax by the back door,


although it has no tax-raising powers, by holding back revenue support grant and thereby forcing councils to put up council tax to meet the difference. Those matters are of major concern to people paying council tax in Wales. We need the answers.
All those matters are crucial for the people of Wales, both immediately and in the near future. New Labour is failing Welsh council tax payers. The only certainty is that they will pay more this year, and even more in years to come. The Government will have to do a lot more explaining and give many more answers than has the Secretary of State today. I hope that they will start to do it at the end of this debate. They owe those explanations to the House, to councils in Wales and, above all, to the Welsh people.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I hope that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will not mind if I do not follow him, tempted as I am by the host of interesting points that he made. I have a specific task this afternoon: to bring to the attention of the House the desperate plight that faces Merthyr Tydfil county borough council in the next financial year. I shall confine my remarks to that, except to say that I was interested by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the byzantine character of local government finance settlements. I have always found them incomprehensible and tried to avoid them. It is a maze into which one should not wander, but I have had to because of the nightmare that faces our council.
Complicated as the problem facing Merthyr county borough and its citizens seems, in some ways it is simple. It emerges starkly from the figures in all the documents available. I shall lay the figures before the House.
In 1997–98, the county borough's budget was £60.953 million. In 1998–99, the cap-limited budget will be able to rise to £63.341 million, an increase of £2.388 million. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government are rightly giving new money to finance and develop education. The money for Merthyr is £1.128 million for schools, another £27,000 for the national grid link and £97,000 of additional money to provide for four-year-olds. With the earmarked £435,000 for care in the community, the total is £1.7 million. Merthyr county borough rightly wishes to follow the Government's guidance that money should be earmarked for those purposes.
The House will already have noticed the dilemma confronting the county borough. Of the £2.388 million increase in budget allowed under the capping arrangement, almost £1.7 million is earmarked. That leaves some £700,000 to finance all the other increased costs that will emerge in the next financial year. That is the nature of the dilemma that confronts Merthyr Tydfil county borough.
I shall take the House through the additional costs that the council faces. The assumption of 3 per cent. inflation in wages, increments and costs is not excessive. That will cost another £2.5 million. The council believes that it has to make a contribution of 2 per cent. to employee superannuation. That is essential. It will cost another £500,000. The district auditor has recommended that the county borough increase its balances by a further £500,000. Most astonishing—this is a matter that I have

explored with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench—there will be an increase in capital financing charges of £1.5 million in 1998–99. There will be additional levies of £200,000 for services such as the fire service. I shall return to the capital service charges later.
In total, the county borough council faces a £5 million difference between its budget proposals and the capped budget. That is in spite of a 12.4 per cent. increase in the council tax. The right hon. Member for Devizes mentioned council tax increases this year. We have suffered them in previous years—25 per cent. the year before last and 15 per cent. last year. So the county borough council faces the prospect of trying to find £5 million worth of cuts in services and a 12.4 per cent. increase in its council tax. That is the dilemma it faces. A conjunction of unfortunate circumstances has led the county borough into this situation.
In the disaggregation of the Mid Glamorgan expenditure, Merthyr county borough inherited a series of heavy spending patterns related mainly to the high level of need in the area. That has led to the highest spending per head, which my hon. Friends will no doubt mention, although the figures reveal that the council has the smallest budget of any local authority in Wales.
As a result of the difficulties in disaggregating Mid Glamorgan expenditure, debts and loan charges in the past year or two, the county borough finance officers now have to assume that an extraordinary debt burden will fall on the council in 1998–99. We are talking about £1.5 million of charges of one kind and another, some of which have been inherited from Mid Glamorgan.
The right hon. Member for Devizes seemed to suggest that the authorities are spendthrift. I do not know whether he has ever visited Merthyr, but if he did so he would appreciate that it is trying to regenerate itself. Its regeneration programme based on capital expenditure has received tremendous backing from successive Secretaries of State, the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency. Sadly, as a consequence of certain factors, exceptional accumulated costs will be incurred by the authority in 1998–99, which mean that it faces the prospect of making cuts of £5 million.
No decision has yet been made about which projects should suffer, but I should like to draw hon. Members' attention to the serious candidates. One of the saddest and unkindest cuts is the proposal to end the provision of hot school meals and instead opt for sandwiches. Inspection reports of our primary schools reveal that up to 50 per cent. of children receive free hot school meals. It would be terrible if they were denied that meal in 1998.
Another proposal is to lease the county borough's part III elderly accommodation. The closure of leisure facilities and branch libraries has also been suggested. A huge cut in the budget for the maintenance and repair of roads has also been proposed, with the result that not only would existing potholes and cracked pavements go unrepaired, but their number would be bound to increase.
Support for our youth orchestra is also in danger, and the free transport arrangements, which bring the over-16s up from the valleys to Merthyr college, are clearly also threatened. Another possibility is to increase charges to support the elderly in the community. It has even been suggested that the concessionary fares for old-age pensioners should be reduced from one half of the full fare to one third. Those are the dilemmas and problems


confronting Merthyr Tydfil because of the peculiar conjunction of circumstances and costs bearing down on it during the financial year 1998–99.
I have studied the way in which the Welsh Local Government Association drew up the formula according to which the settlement has been made. When I cast my eye down the list of figures, I was astonished to discover that some of the poorest authorities have been hit hardest according to this year's financial settlement. I know that the review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues are currently conducting is an acknowledgement of that odd outcome. This year, Merthyr county borough is the only county borough with a minus standard spending assessment. Our neighbouring authorities of Blaenau Gwent and Rhondda Cynon Taff are just on or above the SSA figure.
I do not want to be confrontational, but when the figures appeared on the provisional list, did no official at the WLGA say that there had to be something wrong with a formula that produced such results? I know that there were healthy, vigorous discussions between my right hon. Friend and his colleagues and the WLGA. Surely someone should have stopped and said, "For goodness sake, this cannot be right."
I have studied the official documents, which contain statements such as:
The distribution formula was decided by the WLGA. The Welsh Office merely applied this formula".
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is time to claim back policy making on the local government financial settlement for the Welsh Office. He should by all means seek advice and consult, but such fundamental policy decisions should not be put in hock to other organisations.
I do not want to be malicious, but I wonder whether Merthyr county borough can afford the £62,000 cost for its membership of the WLGA next year. Will that association share the burden of costs and cuts that many of its members now face? If that £62,000 was not paid this financial year, the authority would avoid the need to cut the concessionary fares to old-age pensioners. I appreciate the value and importance of collective decision making through the WLGA, as described by my right hon. Friend, but given its performance and, to say the least, the doubtful way in which it reached its formula, I wonder whether we should give it such extensive responsibilities and powers.
I know that I am engaging in special pleading on behalf of one county borough, but I have never concealed the fact that I believe that Merthyr Tydfil is a special place, with a special role. It is right that I should make its case. Consider the turbulent civic history of the county borough. It started the century by obtaining county borough status and it has had that status restored to it as we approach the end of that century. There have been some amazing moments and crises in that near-century of civic experience—the current crisis will take its place among them.
As a result of the 1935 royal commission into local government expenditure, the men from the Ministry pressed the then Merthyr county borough council to sack many teachers and push up the teacher-pupil ratio. I am so glad that those now occupying the Government Front Bench have a different set of values from those prevalent

in the mid-1930s. Indeed, they are encouraging us to expand and protect our educational expenditure. According to the reports of the 1930s, there was even the barbaric suggestion that the wonderful flower beds of Cyfarthfa park should be grassed over. I fear that that might still happen as a result of the cuts that will be necessary in 1998.
I accept that some of our problems are shared by local government in general. I hope that I have made it plain to my right hon. Friend, however, that, this year, Merthyr, one of the smallest authorities in Wales, is faced with an exceptional set of circumstances and an accumulation of costs. Because of that it will face a crisis in 1998–99. Apparently, it is possible to reschedule the debts of sub-continents, so surely it is not beyond the wit of local officials and those at the Welsh Office to devise some means to spread the burden that faces Merthyr. Surely they should be able to reach a solution to alleviate the worst impact of those accumulated costs and expenditure requirements that are bearing down on the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil.
My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), have been nothing but kindness and patience in all our discussions prior to the debate. Although it appears that the settlement was set in stone by the WLGA, are there not means by which the Welsh Office and the county borough council could get together and devise a more ameliorative package than that which currently confronts the county borough?

Mr. Ron Davies: I must tell my hon. Friend that there is no prospect of doing so. I do not say this lightly, but we must face reality. My hon. Friend must understand that, had there been an alternative, it would have been explored. He has queried whether anyone asked how it was that such deprived communities apparently received the rough end of the deal. That is precisely what I asked in September and why I asked the WLGA to rework the package. That was done and, according to the settlement that my hon. Friend's local authority agreed, the SSA has been reduced by about £1 million but the damping grant—the additional resources that have been made available to local government—will benefit his local authority by more than £3 million.
I acknowledge that there are structural problems with Merthyr, but a few years ago my hon. Friend fought a valiant campaign to retain Merthyr's status as a county borough, and it is largely as a result of the disaggregation of the old county council budgets that Merthyr is now confronted with this problem.
I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing all that we conceivably can to tackle the problem, but that will be done only by reworking the formula, and I can assure him that Merthyr's best interests lie within the Welsh Local Government Association, arguing for the reworking of that formula to meet the needs of communities like his.

Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has been adamant about that, because the disaggregation costs are a grey area. Doubt about which disaggregation costs should be borne by Merthyr county borough has led the county borough to include in the 1998–99 budget about £1.5 million in capital charges and debts.
I ask my right hon. Friend, in that grey area, which is partly historic and partly a consequence of the disaggregation process and uncertainties created by it,
might we not be able to devise something that does not lead the finance officers of the Merthyr county borough council to conclude that they must pile all those debts into one year—1998–99? I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter in that context.
I simply say to my right hon. Friend that I believe that we all have a powerful common interest in maintaining and sustaining a sense of civic effort, pride and commitment. There has been that historic pride and commitment in Merthyr Tydfil county borough, but it will be sorely tested and severely soured as a result of the financial settlement.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I have great sympathy with the case that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made on behalf of the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil. I know some of the figures involved, and the county borough has been hit especially hard. In the 19th century, half my family lived in Merthyr Tydfil, and I know a great deal about its history. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman in fighting his cause for a community that knows what a fight is all about. I hope that, in the long term, the Secretary of State will help such deprived communities, where there is great unemployment.
Given the complexity of the formula for local government finance, it is difficult to take an overview of what is happening. It is much easier to talk about one's own patch because it is so much nearer to the grass roots. I am sure that neither Ministers nor the Secretary of State would wish it to happen, but it appears to some of us that the Labour Government are introducing Tory pain by sticking to the Tories' budget. I do not think that the Secretary of State especially likes doing this sort of thing, and I believe that Treasury rules force him to impose a settlement, albeit following pretty painful negotiations with the Welsh Local Government Association; that results in a formula that produces anomalies.
However, I would be less then generous if I did not congratulate the Government on providing more resources for education, which is very important. I especially congratulate them on their abolition of nursery vouchers—one of the first acts of the Welsh Office under the new Government. Liberal Democrat Members feel that that was absolutely right. It would be extremely churlish not to give credit where it is due, as we would have acted similarly if we had been in that position.
The problems arising from the latest local government settlement are connected with the capping mechanisms—an issue which I raised with the Secretary of State earlier. It imposed a ceiling on council tax—a policy that the previous Government practised to the detriment of local democracy in Wales. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that he would not necessarily continue along that path for ever. I hope that he will change direction before long, because his current course is causing great damage.
The formula agreed by the WLGA has a measure of unfairness in it. That is inevitable, but let us hope that the final formula will be fair to different parts of Wales, with their differing problems. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) rightly mentioned the importance of population sparsity. In the final formula, sparsity in rural areas must be given

the due regard that is given to deprivation in urban areas. We must pay attention to both parts of the equation because, in areas of sparse population, those people who are working have far lower wages than those in the urban areas.
Urban areas suffer from so much unemployment that, by comparison, the poverty that exists in sparsely populated rural areas is often overlooked. We may not take account of the fact that people cannot get around and the lack of public transport. The cost of providing school transport impinges greatly on the budget of many a rural authority in Wales. In order to get the formula right—which is very important—all those aspects must be taken into consideration.
The county of Powys has been in close contact with the Welsh Office, negotiating directly and within the WLGA, and we recognise the hard work that has been done in that regard. However, one impact of capping on Powys—as on many local authorities—deserves attention.
We have a net relevant expenditure in Powys, including new education money, of about £131 million. The total net relevant expenditure that would have occurred if no new education money had come in would have been £128.56 million, but the capping limit is set at £126.59 million, so we must achieve savings of £4.4 million to remain within the cap with new money in the budget. Therefore, the additional education money has come within the cap.
We have an extraordinary problem. We must make savings—which would have been required because not enough new money was coming in—of £1.973 million, so we are suffering because the capping limit has not been raised to take account of the new education money. More money would have been available in Powys if the new education money had not been given to us. Every council in Wales is confronted with that problem, and I know that it impinges on places like Merthyr Tydfil.
Because the capping limit has not been raised to take account of the new education money, the cuts in other council services are much greater than they would otherwise have been. I am sure that that was not intended when the exercise was embarked on. I do not think that the Secretary of State or his Ministers would have deliberately gone along that path, but that has been the impact of the settlement.
Extraordinarily, in Powys, only a 1.16 per cent. increase is available for other services. The impact has fallen on the other services. Housing is to be cut by 7 per cent., highways by 7 per cent. and the highways budget by more than £1 million. The configuration of parameters in the settlement has cut social services by another 7 per cent., and social service funding in Powys has been reduced by £1.3 million. As a result, the council has been forced to increase charges for domiciliary services by twice—and, in some cases, three times—their present level in order to save the social services budget. There is now talk of closing local social services homes. That is a very hard decision to take in a rural area where many people are the poorest in society. Given their track record and their philosophy, I am sure that the Government do not wish to go down that path. However, that is the impact of this settlement.
We must also consider the legacy of the previous Government, who—I am sure for good environmental reasons—imposed a landfill tax. There has been much


discussion about that. The landfill tax in Powys costs £2 million, which is no longer available to invest in services.
The settlement has caused many problems. Local democracy is vital: we believe in it and think that it should be developed further. We believe also that local government should assume some of the functions of the quangos. I am certain that local authorities would spend the money wisely. I hope that the drive to abolish quangos and transfer their functions to either local authorities or the new Welsh assembly will continue, and become even stronger.
The right hon.Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) lamented the fact that the House will not be involved in many future discussions about the details of Welsh local government settlements. I believe that it is right that such settlements should be considered in the National Assembly for Wales, where well-informed assembly representatives will have the opportunity to go into great detail and represent their areas in a very forthright manner. The assembly is the right place to do that. I hope that the assembly will show great vision when deciding spending priorities in Wales. I am pleased that education has received a high priority, and I am sure that health and many other issues that are close to our hearts in the rural areas will receive similar treatment in the future.
I believe that there is hope for the future. However, the settlement contains many unfair aspects, which have resulted in a £70—or 15 per cent.—increase in band D council tax in my county. That situation must change.

Mr. Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is completely contrary to the expectations of the people of Powys, who must pay a 15 per cent. increase in council tax when many services are being cut by about 7 per cent? They are not efficiency savings: we are losing real services. That is not what people expected from the Labour Government.

Mr. Livsey: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. People are paying more in council tax and not only receiving fewer services but losing some services altogether. I am sure that the Government will examine that problem in greater detail in the future—particularly as regards the formula. We do not wish to see the Government follow the same path as the previous Administration—although that is what they have done this year by adopting the Conservatives' budget. The previous Government's politics should be designated to the dustbin of the past. We want to look forward; we must show that we have a social conscience and believe in local democracy. We are certain that the new era of democracy signalled by the Welsh assembly will herald a brighter future.

Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you call the next speaker, could you inquire as to whether the annunciators are working? There are very few Welsh Members in the Chamber given the importance of the debate. I wonder whether hon. Members are aware that the debate is taking place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is an extremely frivolous point of order, which has nothing to do with the proceedings.

Ms Julie Morgan: I served as a councillor from 1985 until 1997, when I came to the House, so I am pleased to speak in a debate about local government finance as a member of a Labour Government who are committed to local democracy and to restoring powers to local government. That is a refreshing change after 18 years under Conservative Governments who consistently took powers from local government and centralised them. At times, their relationship with Welsh local authorities was positively hostile.
It will take years to recover from the Tory legacy in Wales. Several years of appalling settlements in the Cardiff area have forced deep cuts in important services, including the community education service and the youth service. Those high-quality services are tremendously important to the young, the unemployed, pensioners and to women.

Mr. Swayne: In what respect does the hon. Lady believe that this settlement will begin to redress the damage to which she refers?

Ms Morgan: I shall come to that issue in a moment.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the possibility of concreting over the flower beds in Cyfarthfa castle, I was reminded of when we were unable to tend the flower beds in Queen street. My hon. Friend mentioned people's civic pride: people certainly felt despondent when we were not able to tend the flower beds. Those are the sort of problems that we faced during the long years of Tory government.
Those years are now over, and Labour has delivered a reasonable financial settlement to Cardiff—it is certainly much more favourable than recent settlements. The new Government have earmarked nursery voucher money for the general schools budget and have revised the standard spending assessment slightly to the local authority's benefit. I accept that the process of disaggregation has been easier for Cardiff than for Merthyr Tydfil. Cardiff is a much larger organisation and, as such, is able to cope better with changes and spread resources more easily. Therefore, Cardiff has advantages that Merthyr Tydfil does not. However, I remind the House that Cardiff also includes four wards with the highest unemployment in Wales. There is great need in Cardiff that is concentrated in particular areas.
The authority's capping limit has been increased by 5.1 per cent. above the current year's figure, and our SSA has increased by 5.2 per cent. Some £5.5 million has been earmarked for the general schools budget, an extra £2 million is allocated for care in the community, and there is almost £3 million from the revised distribution formula.
The general increase for inflation is just 1.2 per cent., which must be used to meet many demands. That will cause some problems. The extra money for schools will be directed to schools and used to try to improve standards. Efforts are being made by the local authority to protect the social services budget. However, the money that is provided for community care is unlikely to meet the demands of all the elderly or disabled people who want to remain in the community.
In my constituency, a great deal of anxiety has been generated by the threat to close the Alzheimer's Disease Society day centre in Whitchurch, which provides day care for elderly people who suffer from dementia. I am hopeful that negotiations with the local authority will result in a viable package that will enable the society to continue its operations. In view of the rise in the elderly population and the increase in the number of elderly people suffering from dementia, it is essential for respite care to be provided for them and their families.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Lady says that the Government are righting previous wrongs. What words of comfort does she have for pensioners who expect the cost of their domiciliary care to triple? What words of comfort can she offer to those who will lose many of their rural bus services as a direct result of her Government's financial decisions?

Ms Morgan: Cardiff feared that the community care settlement would be much worse. We said that there would have to be a limit of £107 for each community care package. Fortunately, we have been able to adjust that to a limit of £127, and we hope to provide most of the services for most of the people. I accept that there will still be problems for some people. I hope that the Alzheimer's Disease Society day centre will be saved. I and the people who are affected are negotiating with the local authority about that. That offers some hope, and the Government are helping on the issue. Obviously, in my constituency I cannot have an intimate knowledge of rural bus services, so I cannot comment on that.
The first groups to suffer cuts in an austerity programme are the voluntary sector and outside organisations that are funded by local authorities. That is short-sighted, because, although the staff of such groups are not local authority employees, they provide services on the authority's behalf and bring the added value of voluntary bodies.
One of the outstandingly successful examples of an independent organisation being funded by the local authority in Cardiff and by Europe is the South Glamorgan women's workshop, which is now called Cardiff and the Vale women's workshop. It was set up in 1984 to train women over the age of 25 who had no qualifications, and it provides training by women for women. It has a day nursery, arranges its hours to suit women with children at school, and provides training in computer technology, confidence building and preparation for employment.
The activities of the women's workshop fit in totally with the Government's welfare-to-work programme, because it helps women to get off benefits and into work. It has won numerous awards such as the Fawcett Society award for positive action in training, national education and training awards, and equality exchange certificates. It is recognised as a centre of excellence. In a time of cuts, it seems to be the sort of organisation that is one of the first targets of local government. Every pound of local authority funding it loses reduces its European funding. I hope that the settlement will enable the proposed funding cuts in that workshop to be adjusted so that it can survive, because, as I have said, it fits in well with what the Government are trying to do and is a flagship project for Cardiff.
The nursery voucher money that will come to Cardiff is helping the local authority to extend its programme of nursery education throughout Cardiff and especially in my constituency. When I was campaigning in the general election, I found that one of the big issues was the almost complete absence of local authority nurseries. Since being elected, I have had the pleasure of opening two nurseries, and two more are planned in my area. I hope that we shall be able to develop a comprehensive pattern of nursery education in my constituency and to link it with pre-school play provision so that parents have a choice.
Like the Secretary of State, I hope that Cardiff council will rejoin the Welsh Local Government Association. I am extremely concerned that my constituents do not have a voice, through the council, in that association. An overall body with which the Welsh Office can negotiate is essential. The association is the best we have, and we must try to support it. Wales is to have an assembly, and a partnership council is to be set up. The Secretary of State has said that he will negotiate on capping, and it is essential for my constituents to have a voice in that.
This is an exciting time for local government. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State talk about an holistic approach to services because that is the key to creating a vibrant, exciting, local government service in Wales and a meaningful assembly. I was a member of the local authority for 12 years; some of our contributions to tackling grass-roots issues and drawing together the different threads of education, health, social services and economic development provided me with some of my most exciting times in politics. I hope that initiatives on those matters will develop in the National Assembly for Wales and in local government.
This is my first debate on the revenue support grant. Unlike the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who is not in his place, I am pleased, as was the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), that this is the last time that I shall take part in such a debate in the House. I welcome the fact that, in future, the settlement will be debated in the National Assembly for Wales by all the representatives from whatever parties they come. It will be good if all parties are represented in the assembly because that will lead to good debates and sound solutions. All the representatives will be from Wales, and that is bound to lead to better debates.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I should like to refer to some of the matters that were raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan). I cannot call the hon. Lady my hon. Friend, not least because her husband is sitting next to her. She said that this is probably the most exciting time for local government. I take it that she was borrowing from the Chinese proverb. We are living in exciting and interesting times in local government.
Although I agreed with much that the hon. Lady said, I empathise more with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). He represents an area of some deprivation, while my area is sparsely populated, and both of us have emerged rather badly from the review.
The settlement is totally insufficient to meet the needs of Welsh local government. No doubt that is because the Government have had to make the hard choices we hear


about almost daily. If the Government have, as they always confirm, inherited a difficult scheme and spending plans from the previous Government, it is clear what they should do. Anyone with a burdensome legacy can relinquish it at law. Simply hiding behind spending limits all the time is wearing a bit thin, and the word "inheritance" seems to be the most important one in this Parliament.
In any event, the Government voluntarily signed up to the spending plans. The idea was to attract the well-heeled of middle England and the south-east. Why on earth should the impoverished communities of the valleys in Wales and the people in rural areas, where there is less obvious but real poverty, be sacrificed on the altar of Labour's burning ambition? I believe that, although the commitment not to increase income tax may have been a vote winner for the Government, it will surely come back to haunt them in the next two or three years. The Government will then realise that no one can possibly empathise with an Administration who are so morally bereft as to target single mothers, students, the disabled and the ordinary council tax payers simply to prop up their regime.
Last year, the anthem was "Things can only get better". Now, all we hear from the Government is that things can only get worse because of the difficult decisions they have to make. That is what we hear day in, day out. I believe that it is indefensible for any Government not to use all the instruments at their disposal to assist in governing. The backdrop to consideration of this settlement is the fact that they have ruled out any question of tax increases.
The Government's spending plans for Wales are as bad as those of their predecessors. Had these plans been offered last year, Labour Members would have been howling and in uproar. For example, because of the severe cuts and the likely loss of more than £500,000 in the current financial year in Denbighshire, about 50 social workers may be made compulsorily redundant.
One of my local authorities, Gwynedd, welcomed the £50 million extra for education—it would be churlish not to—but it does not believe that it will be able to use all of it for education. I am sure that other authorities in Wales will feel the same. It is a question not of failing in their priorities, but of having to make savings almost equal to the amount they receive. We are probably talking about the status quo.
The problem is that the Secretary of State has not increased the external support. It has not been increased sufficiently to match the committed increase in spending power. Council tax payers will have to shoulder the burden of the difference, which will entail council tax increases averaging 12.5 per cent. The figures range from an estimated 10.5 per cent. in Flintshire to a huge 17 per cent. in Powys. Clearly there are some hard times ahead.
As I have said, the extra resources for schools under the capital receipts initiative are to be welcomed. However, one long-standing problem for local government has been the operation of the SSA. I am aware of the recent SSA formula review, which we are discussing, and I am also aware that the Welsh Local Government Association agreed to it. However, I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. There must be an input from individual

councils in the bargaining process. If there is not, we will see special cases fall through the net—I believe that we are seeing that now.
Like many others, I believe that the formula needs to be revisited yet again. Some of the key issues that need to be addressed are those of rurality, sparsity of population and the seasonal increase in population, all of which greatly influence spending power and the way in which councils are able to conduct their business.
I also represent the area covered by Conwy county borough council. That council is pleased to have received the so-called new deal for schools. However, it says that it will not achieve the purpose for which it was intended. I am told that the reason is that the council has to expect the education committee to save about £745,000 towards the overall requirement of council spending in 1998–99. I stress that that is not being used to fund teachers' pay awards. Because the new deal money does not match the demographic changes in the schools, there will be a shortfall and, consequently, the money will not achieve the purpose for which it was honestly paid.
In social service£834,000 is being excluded from the budget plan, although just over £1 million has been added in from the care in the community transfer. The social services committee is greatly concerned about the impact on children's services because of the funding restriction. Elsewhere in the council, there will be concerns about the impact on regulatory services, environmental health, food inspection, dog warden services, housing fitness, and so on, all of which are important. There will be concerns about other equally important matters such as local Agenda 21, access officers, and so on.
If the funding of pay awards were contained within the settlement, the position in Conwy would be very different. The council fully understands the economic policy adopted by the Government when they were conducting reviews into local government as a whole. In terms of distributing SSA, it cannot be argued that the council has been treated unfairly, but it feels that there is some unfairness in the position with regard to capping and expenditure levels per head of population. Conwy's spending power per head of population is about £885—the second lowest in Wales. The expenditure per head of population in neighbouring areas is about £120 higher. That is a considerable difference. A relaxation of capping may be part of the review, and I urge the Minister to consider these points when the relaxation comes about.
Gwynedd council, which is a well-run and efficient council, is unhappy about the settlement. The council leader, Alun Ffred Jones, was quoted recently as saying:
This new formula does not give sufficient consideration to the high costs of delivering services in rural areas. It is an unjust formula which is costing some of Wales's poorer areas millions of pounds.
He said that the council's current spending level was £6 million lower than that of its predecessors. He added:
Most of these savings were made by reducing administration costs, but it will be very difficult to do this again this year as these costs have been cut to such an extent over the last two years. Despite this difficult situation, we will do everything within our powers to protect direct services to the public.
In order to make as many savings as possible, Gwynedd council members have taken substantial cuts in their allowances for the coming year. Food allowances have gone completely, and reductions have been imposed voluntarily on all allowances.
There will be cuts in the maintenance and renewal of roads. That is inevitable. There is already a poor infrastructure. In fact, it is so bad that it may soon hamper economic development.
Extending car parking charges is also being considered, as is the removal of car parking concessions for some pensioners. The council does not want to contemplate that, but it is on the table.
Spending on library books in the county, which is already well below Welsh average, is likely to be cut further. The grants to the local theatre, Theatr Gwynedd, are likely to be cut by a considerable percentage. The grants for the national eisteddfod are likely to be affected as well.
It has been estimated that 50 jobs could be jeopardised because the authority is having to cut its budget for economic development by nearly £140,000. Officials are recommending cutting more than £25,000 from a grant to fund small businesses in the county. That is likely to leave the council unable to gain an equivalent amount of European funding. All in all, it is a sad position for Gwynedd.
I cannot accept the view that this is the best settlement there is. Bus services in rural areas will be affected, and there will be cuts in every area of local government. That follows year-on-year cuts. Gwynedd will have to cut £3 million from its budget. Since the council came into being 20 months ago, it has been forced to cut and cut again. To date, it has cut £9 million of spending. That is equal to the annual revenue spending of the old Meirionnydd district council and the old Dwyfor district council which it replaced.
Therefore, it is a dire position, which is made worse by the fact that there was no start-up assistance when the unitary authority came into being. Increasing the spending that is available to Gwynedd by 1.2 per cent. is totally inadequate to meet inflationary costs and necessary spending on the servicing of the annual debt. It is crippling.
The obvious question one has to ask is: when will all this stop? The Government pretend that they seek to bolster local government, but those are empty words when, year after year, councils are cash strapped, services are cut and council tax payers are hammered to maintain just a shoestring budget. I venture to suggest that the enmity between central and local government will be made worse by this Government, not better, as we had all expected.
One of the changes in the manner in which the settlement is arrived this year is extremely detrimental to Gwynedd, Conwy, Denbighshire, Ynys Môn and virtually all other unitary authorities in Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not wish to make bids and counter-bids, but, looking down all the tables, no way is Denbighshire a loser. It seems to be a substantial gainer in the system.

Mr. Llwyd: If hon. Members will bear with me, I will make the point and then I will give way, if they wish to ask me about it.
There has been a change in the way in which moneys have been allocated this year and it has not been based on any reasonable or objective criterion. I think of the huge

increase in summer population that those areas experience. If anyone wants to question me about that, I will give way.

Mr. Rowlands: I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that Denbighshire had suffered from the settlement. Looking at the report, I find that it is receiving a 7.3 per cent. increase. Merthyr Tydfil would be happy to receive half that.

Mr. Llwyd: My point is that those areas have a large summer population, which differs from their winter population. That criterion has not been included in the settlement. That causes difficulty. I shall speak for Gwynedd and Conwy with complete confidence because I have been instructed to put this point to the Minister, and I hope that he will respond.
May I cite one small example from personal knowledge? The winter population of Betws-y-Coed, the village in which I was born and brought up, which is in my constituency, is roughly 500; in summer, it is between 11,000 and 12,000. My point is well made by those statistics. We may argue about whether Denbighshire, a semi-rural and tourist area, is affected, but I reiterate the point on behalf of Conwy and Gwynedd. I am sure that other areas are affected.

Mr. Rowlands: I would correct the hon. Gentleman's point, because, in considering the increases, we find that Denbighshire has a 7.3 per cent. increase and Merthyr Tydfil a 3.9 per cent. increase. I do not wish to make bids and counter-bids, but it is unfair to say that, in this settlement, Denbighshire has been badly served.

Mr. Llwyd: I will not argue the toss, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak, but I make the point on behalf of those other authorities, and it is a proper point.
The hugely increased cost of delivering services to sparsely populated areas is another element that is not receiving due prominence. For example, emptying a litter bin in my constituency can cost four or five times more than in Cardiff, Swansea or Wrexham. Insufficient regard is paid to that and its impact.
Last week, inresponding to a Home Office debate, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), said that there would be a review of police spending and, in particular, a review of police spending in rural areas. I welcome that, and urge the Government to reconsider the current criteria to ensure that the extra cost of serving a sparse population in all unitary areas, including rural areas, is considered and that they all get a fair deal.
The other aspect that needs a more considered approach is deprivation. We see it in the urban areas. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has made his case well, despite trying to destroy mine. His area has come off worse. I respect the way in which he puts his case, and I support it, but, at the other end of the scale, more rural areas have also suffered in this review. Both ends of the scale, as it were, need to be considered. It is vital that any further SSA review commands support throughout Wales—that means every part of it. I am sure that, in due course, those points will be borne in mind.
I trust that the damping grant will remain for at least two years, or for as long as it takes to bed down any new formula. I am sure that that obvious point will be taken into account.
I finish where I started. The settlement is not good for Gwynedd or Conwy. It will inevitably lead to service cuts and council tax increases. Let the people of Wales be under no illusions about the cause of that: it is the Government's adherence to the previous Government's spending plans, which they criticised severely 12 to 18 months ago.
The ordinary citizens of Wales will now have to suffer because of Labour's seeming pact with the devil. It is unfortunate. I expected better, but, unfortunately, the settlement is insufficient, and Ministers well know it. I am sure that other hon. Members would have spoken up in the Chamber, were it not for their loyalty to the Government.

Several hon. Member: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. About eight hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye and limited time remains. May I encourage very brief speeches so that I can fit in as many hon. Members as possible?

Mr. Martin Caton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling another ex-councillor.
From the revenue support grant settlement, it seems that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has started to apply the brakes on the decline in local government services which we have witnessed and painfully experienced in Wales over recent years. For most of us, the settlement does not yet start to reverse that decline or, in the main, provide the means to commence rebuilding and renewing those vital services, but it is welcome because it begins to stop the rot.
In the circumstances—we are living with the commitment to the previous Government's spending plans—what we have is probably rather better than we might have expected. The decision to increase the total Welsh Office block by 2.7 per cent. is a recognition of real need and a statement of Ministers' priority: to put local authorities in a position whereby they can increase their budgets in the new financial year by, on average, 4.8 per cent.—in effect, double last year's increase.
We accept that that is as good as it could get this year, but we have to face up to the scale of the task ahead in reconstructing local public services. Local government has endured 18 years of sustained onslaught from the previous Government, including more than 60 pieces of legislation that were intended to emasculate our councils, shift power from democratic representatives to a quangocracy, and starve locally provided services of vital resources. It is testament to the resilience of local democracy in Wales that, in the face of wave after wave of dogma-driven attack over that long period, our councils managed to defend their communities as well as they did.
When he was leader of the Labour party, Neil Kinnock memorably described local government as
a battered shield that defended local communities from the worst of Conservative Central Government's policies.

It was, and thank goodness for that, but, by 1 May last year, that battered shield was badly damaged. A huge repair operation needs to get under way. Our local councils must be empowered to provide the range and quality of services that our communities are entitled to expect as we near the new millennium. That will be one of our Government's major challenges in the years ahead.
For this year, I warmly welcome the extra resources that were earmarked for schools in last year's Budget. In my own local authority of Swansea, that extra funding will mean £3.6 million for schools that would not otherwise have been available. It will also stop the haemorrhaging of teachers from Swansea's education service, which reached such alarming proportions last year. Keeping teachers in the classroom and class sizes down is the best contribution that we can make now to raising education standards. However, really meeting the challenge of raising education standards will require considerably more resources than we are yet able to provide.
I look forward also to the money allocated to improving school buildings reaching our local schools. On Monday, I visited a rural primary school in my constituency. The fabric of its buildings and the condition of its toilets and other facilities were not anywhere near the standard that we want for our children. However, it is good news that we now have a Government who are prepared to take action, to remedy more than one and a half decades of Government neglect of the buildings in which our children are educated.
Especially welcome in my part of the world is restoration of the money taken from local government to fund the nonsensical nursery voucher scheme. In Swansea—thanks to our inheritance from the old West Glamorgan county council—every four-year-old and 80 per cent. of three-year-olds were already receiving reception class or nursery education when nursery vouchers were introduced. The voucher scheme threatened to damage that service provision, but, thankfully, we got rid of it before that could happen. Thanks to the money for the nursery voucher scheme being restored to local authorities, that local service will be sustained and improved. Moreover, the emphasis that we want to place on early learning will be ensured.
Beyond education, it is only fair to acknowledge that local democracy faces a hard year ahead. In Swansea, all services other than schools will have to absorb inflation, spending pressures created by new legislation and increased demands. The year will be tough, and, in Swansea, it will mean a 15 per cent. council tax increase for the community. I support the call from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) to end capping as soon as possible, but I do not think that ending it would have made any difference this year in Swansea, as the council would not have seriously considered a council tax increase of more than 15 per cent.
I am confident that Swansea will manage to protect front-line services, and I suspect that most other local authorities in Wales will be able to do the same. However, I do not believe that they will be able to continue managing so well for much longer if there is not a real change in direction and if greater resources are not made available. Specifically, we are moving ever nearer to a crisis in community care, with demand far outstripping


what can be supplied with current and proposed funding. Our elderly and our young people with learning disabilities are in particular danger of being the victims of a resource shortfall.
Although I accept that the formula on which the settlement was based was devised and agreed by the Welsh Local Government Association, I do not think—as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said—that the association got it right. Specifically, I am concerned that inadequate weight has been given to measuring deprivation. I know that need assessment is a difficult matter—which we started to explore in our debate on the Barnett formula during the Committee stage of the Government of Wales Bill—but we must tackle it. We have the assessment formula wrong, and some of the worst-off communities in Wales are the losers. We will have to re-examine the very basis of assessing need and resource allocations to Welsh local government.
I welcome the fundamental review that the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech and accept that, inevitably, that will take considerable time. However, I hope that, even before next year, some improvements can be agreed between the Welsh Local Government Association and the Welsh Office.

Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) made some points about the expectations raised and commitments made by the Government, when they were in opposition, to local councils in Wales and across the kingdom that have not been met. By any reckoning, this settlement is a bad one for local government, especially for local government in Wales.
I should like to raise four issues. First, Ministers should put aside the nonsense about inherited spending plans and patterns. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, the Government's decision to stick with the previous Government's spending plans was a conscious political decision and a matter of policy. The requirement to stick to those plans was not set in stone—like the commandments sent to Moses—but a political decision that Ministers must learn to live with. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is beginning to wear a little thin to hear Ministers still whingeing about their decision.
Secondly, local government in Wales faces extra costs because of the Government's policies. I think that all hon. Members will acknowledge that local government faces enormous extra costs because of the tax on pension funds. As other policies are implemented, they, too, will put extra pressure on local authorities and absorb more of their scarce resources. Inflation must also be considered by local governments when they are developing their budgets, as they are doing, because it will create additional pressures. Therefore, the Government's own actions have created additional costs that local government must absorb.
Thirdly, the Government have failed to deal with some of the matters that they complained about when in opposition, especially the issue of sparsity in rural areas. Sparsity particularly affects Wales, and it is sad and surprising that, as I said earlier, hon. Members representing constituencies that are so adversely affected by sparsity are not in the Chamber. The Government's lack of will in addressing the sparsity issue and in

adjusting the funding formula to deal with it is a great disappointment, not only to the House and to local authorities and councillors but to the public. The settlement is therefore a lost opportunity.
Fourthly, education must be taken seriously, and bogus claims and assertions about extra money will have to be countered. The technique is simple: spend unallocated reserves, which are then brought forward by about nine months. No extra Government money is going to education—money which could have been spent anywhere has simply been adjusted within current budgets and applied to education. Although unallocated Budget reserves are being brought forward, we are told by Ministers, and by people across the kingdom, including Wales, that extra money is available.
What is the net effect on local government of that reallocation? It is to squeeze other vital services. Therefore, even if one accepts that the Government have fulfilled some of their pledges on education, there is very bad news for highways, social services, public protection and libraries. Across Wales and across the kingdom, local authorities are facing cuts and closures. People should understand that that is a direct result of this settlement and of the Government's policies. Across Wales, old people in old people's homes and small communities that lose their libraries and must squeeze their fire brigade budgets should know that that is the price of a Labour Administration in Westminster. Let them know it with no uncertainty.

Mr. Öpik: Presumably the hon. Gentleman will also agree that those cuts are a direct result of the Labour Government's continuation of the Conservative party's policies?

Mr. Hayes: The Deputy Prime Minister said:
The last Government's spending plans implied a council tax increase of 7 per cent. By keeping within spending limits, that is the legacy we inherit.
However, given that local authorities in Wales will not wish to draw on reserves or to make cuts, the settlement will lead to an average council tax increase of between 10.5 and 17 per cent. The figures are as follows: Conwy 14 per cent., Denbighshire 13 per cent., Swansea 15 per cent., Newport 13 per cent. and Cardiff 12 per cent. Therefore, even on the Deputy Prime Minister's own admission, this is a very bad settlement for Wales.

Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that for a band D property those figures translate into £60 a year? That might be only £5 a month, but add the additional mortgage payments of £30 a month, which are also the consequence of Government policies, and the total represents serious money for precisely the sort of families that Labour used to represent.

Mr. Hayes: I am sure that you will not allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stray into consideration of the Government's policies on mortgage rates, but I cannot help but agree with my hon. Friend.
The truth is that the settlement will mean cuts in all sorts of vital services. The paradox is that, simultaneously, it will mean significant council tax increases. In other words, there will be reduced services and higher charges.


We do not yet know the figures, because local government budgets are being considered, but the projected increases could be up to 17 per cent. That is Labour's responsibility.

Mr. Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman mentioned cuts. I was a schoolteacher for 15 years before becoming a Member of Parliament, and there were cuts in education spending for five consecutive years out of the last six. Last year, there was a 6 per cent. cut in Denbighshire, but this year there is an 8 per cent. increase in funding. I have a letter from the director of education outlining where that money is going—to the chalkface to help all pupils, including those with special needs. These are not bogus claims, but real ones.

Mr. Hayes: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was not listening or he did not understand what I was saying. I made a grudging acknowledgement on education. I did not say that the Government were not funding education; I said that they were funding it out of unallocated reserves. I said that the net effect of concentrating on education was a reduction in funding for other critical services.
When Labour Members speak to their constituents on these subjects, they must face the reality that by prioritising one service, they are disadvantaging other services—spending on the elderly, children, libraries and highways. These are all service areas that mean a great deal to small communities, and may perhaps mean more to some electors than increases in education spending. That is a matter of judgment, but the Government have not helped in any of the other service areas.
I will take no lessons from Labour Members on local democracy and local government. We have a Prime Minister who has served no apprenticeship in local government, which is unfortunate and, I think, sad. I have been a county councillor for 13 years. Indeed, I still am a county councillor, and am proud of that. Local government is a vital part of this country's democratic infrastructure because it enables ordinary folk to have some contact with and understanding of the exercise of political power. I believe in local democracy as strongly as any Labour Member.
No one can tell me that this is a good settlement for local government. Things have been made worse by the high expectations created by what the Secretary of State and others said before the election. People in local government and in villages, towns and cities throughout Wales feel not only a sense of anger at this settlement, but a sense of betrayal.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) whose speech was very spirited, although of a "put a penny in the slot, Tory Opposition attack anything and everything that Labour has done in its first nine months" character. Nevertheless, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's speech for its spirit, and I shall follow it in one sense.
This is a good settlement in that it is far better than anything that the previous Government ever gave in the 10 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, but it

is not good enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) said, we cannot undo in one year what it took the Tories 18 years to do. That is the legacy we have inherited, and things cannot be put right overnight. In the short time available, I shall concentrate on one matter which shows clearly why we cannot put right in one year the problems created by the Tories during their four consecutive terms in office. I shall refer to social services.
As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, there are problems in the provision of social services. Some of them can be self-inflicted by mismanagement—that can undoubtedly happen—but there are particular difficulties with the care of the elderly in the community.
A couple of months ago, we thought that we were facing Armageddon in Cardiff when we examined the budget for 1998–99. The local authority was proposing to put a limit of £107 a week on domiciliary care services. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) has already mentioned that figure, but I shall go into a little more detail. The situation does not look quite so bad now that the authority has reassessed the limit at £127 a week. That is the maximum allowable cost that the local authority will pay for domiciliary services—subject to the means test, of course. It still means that many people whom it has been decided would benefit from domiciliary care, not residential care, will not be able to get the care that would suit them best.
People face going into a nursing home or an old people's home instead of getting the care that they and their families would have preferred, which it has been assessed would be right for them but which is simply not affordable, given Cardiff county council's budgetary conditions. As I said, the limit was raised by £20 to £127, but it still means that many people will be put into nursing and residential care homes although they should not be there.
It is also interesting to note that the local authority has reversed another decision. It had decided that home helps, or home carers as they are now called in Cardiff, should not be allowed to do any housework. There are times when they should specialise in the new duties that they now undertake—for example, help people get up, get dressed and have breakfast or encourage people to eat if they would otherwise not do so—rather than buying the occasional lamb chop and doing a bit of light housework, but sometimes people need to have their housework done. I am pleased that the decision has been reversed.
A case involving a constituent of mine was highlighted in the local evening newspaper, the South Wales Echo, only a couple of days ago. It centred on a 93-year-old blind woman who lived in a sheltered, warden-assisted housing complex. Because she lived in sheltered housing, she did not have her own washing machine. She lived at the far end of the complex and had to carry her washing across a courtyard to the communal washing area. The home carer used to do that for her, and that service was going to be stopped.
The lady was blind and could not get down the 14 steps or walk across the courtyard with washing in her hand. As she was 93, her children were pensioners themselves and none lived in Cardiff. They were all in their late 60s or early 70s, as one would expect with a mother of 93. What was she to do? Luckily, the decision has been


reversed and, when required, the housework element of the home carer's duty for that elderly woman and people like her has been restored. I am glad that the easing of Cardiff's budgetary constraints means that some of the more horrific cuts in social services are to be made good. We are no longer facing Armageddon, but there are still problems.
I hope that many of the problems will be solved by what the Government do over the next few years. We have talked about fundamental reviews, and I hope that the Government will try to create a level playing field for domiciliary care and nursing home care for elderly or other dependent people who require continual care.
If a person goes into a nursing home or an old people's home, the local authority may take into account the capital value of his home, take it off him and use the proceeds to fund his care. It cannot do that with domiciliary care because the person is living in his home. The option of taking the home off the person and leasing it back until he dies should be available to the local authority. That would provide a level playing field for domiciliary care and residential care, removing the current biased financial basis.
The local authority can help, but the rest has to be done by reviewing the rules on community care so that decisions on whether old people should go to a nursing home, go to an old people's home or stay in their home with domiciliary care support are made on the basis of what is best for each old person, rather than some of the peculiar rules between central Government and local government from which we still suffer.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am surprised that I have heard talk about 18 years of Tory misrule. Wales has received a disproportionate amount of inward investment given its population. The Labour party should take note of a former Chancellor, who described the state of the economy as the best in a generation. Labour has inherited that. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) correctly pointed out that the Labour Government decided to stick to the Conservative spending limits; they were not forced to do so.
In the brief time available to me, I should like to draw attention to one or two points. People in Wales face massive council tax increases. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings pointed out several areas that will have high increases. Rather than going over the many factors behind that, I should like to point out some future costs. The Welsh assembly may have added costs. It will be able to reduce the amount of money that it gives to local authorities in Wales and could give that money to other bodies, such as the Welsh Development Agency. It could also introduce a tax-raising power through the back door by deliberately holding funds back from local authorities, forcing council taxes up.
Businesses in Wales will also face a threat. Responsibility for the calculation of the national non-domestic rate will pass to the assembly after devolution. It will also be able to decide how much money local authorities can borrow. There is no guarantee that the assembly will not cut funding for councils, forcing them to incur even more debt.
Hon. Members on both sides have said that the settlement is inadequate. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, it leads to massive increases in council tax for many people. If that is not bad enough, there could be worse to come.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I declare an interest, because I have a family business in Swansea. The majority of my family still live there. I am disappointed to have seen so few Labour Members from Welsh constituencies. Either they are with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the Smoking Room or they are embarrassed by the settlement.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the entire Welsh parliamentary party has been here for the majority of the debate.

Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the Conservatives, that is a cheap shot.

Mr. Öpik: No; Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Evans: The Liberal Democrats have only two Members of Parliament for Welsh constituencies, who seem to have had a rota during the debate.
Council taxes in Wales will go up by between 10 and 17 per cent.—between £49 and £70—after a general election campaign when we heard that there would be no income tax rises. What is the council tax rise but an attack on people's income? It will have to come out of already taxed income.
This is not a good settlement for the people of Wales, who will have to stump up the extra money. It is the first time in 18 years that people have had to experience Labour local authorities and a Labour Government. We were told:
Things can only get better.
Things can only get dearer, things can only get more expensive, things can only get more miserable for many Welsh people living on limited incomes and having to find extra money from a dry well.
The settlement adds insult to injury for many pensioners living in Wales. They were told in an enormous advertising campaign—at great cost—that they would get an extra £20 to help with their heating bills. The increase in their council tax will more than eat up that extra £20. I suspect that there will be no Government advertising campaign to tell them that. The situation is a great shame.
I was a county councillor in west Glamorgan for six years. I know that local government has some soul searching to do at this time of year. It is not the best of jobs at the best of times, and this is not the best of times, as we have heard. The hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) have told us the problems that their local authorities will face. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) spoke about the priorities that local authorities will have to consider. With money being targeted at education, they will have to look at other departments to find somewhere to make cuts. Will it be in highways? Most certainly yes


for most local authorities. Social services? Yes, there will be deep cuts in social services in many areas. Libraries? Yes, there will be cuts there as well.
I have spoken to representatives of several local authorities in north Wales, west Wales and south Wales in the past two days. They are concerned about the cuts in social services that they face. We have heard about the extra demands that Powys faces, with an aging population and deprivation in some areas.
In the past 12 months, the incomes of farmers in Wales have dropped by 50 per cent. They already feel badly let down by central Government. They now face hefty increases in their council tax. The Secretary of State will know that tenant farmers living in farmhouses that they do not own will face higher than usual band charges. What attention will be given to those farming areas that are facing ruin because of cheap imports, higher interest rates, the extra costs of traceability and renderers charges and the limitation on weight limits on the over-30-months scheme? What extra attention will the Government give to help those families to cope with the deprivation that they are facing?
We have also heard discussion about reform of the formula, particularly from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. We cannot say hand on heart that this is a good settlement, given some of the choices that he was talking about. It is a disgrace that cutting out hot meals for school children is being considered. For some children, the school meal may be the only hot meal that they get during the day. I thought that that was one reason why we ensured that our schoolchildren in the most deprived circumstances had assistance with school meals.

Mr. Llew Smith: I was somewhat critical of the present formula. How would the situation be different if the hon. Gentleman's regime had continued? Members of my local authority and I met previous Secretaries of State for Wales, who refused to introduce an element in the formula to take account of deprivation to the extent that we wanted.

Mr. Evans: All we have heard for the past 18 years is how much better things would be if the Labour party came to office. In the first debate on this subject since Labour came to power, we are talking about cutting hot meals for school children. That is a disgrace. I hope that the formula revaluation will ensure that councillors and officers will not confront such decisions again. The review is urgent. Councillors and officers will certainly get assistance from the Conservative party to ensure a fair review which will take account of all areas—north, south, east and west—of Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: Whatever criticism I might have made of the settlement, I dissociate myself completely from the 18 years of the hon. Gentleman's Tory Government, who did so much damage to all our communities. We are trying to pick up the pieces.

Mr. Evans: I expect no less from the hon. Gentleman. When some of the schoolchildren in his area are eating cold sandwiches, perhaps some of them will reflect that this settlement has not been particularly good for Wales.
In the review, will the Minister look into the enormous disparities between neighbouring areas in authorities such as Denbighshire and Conwy? The formula has worked better for Denbighshire, but not as well as it should have.
Another problem is the aging population. That is a particularly bad problem given that we are talking about cutting the funds and resources of social services departments throughout Wales. As we have heard, Conwy will have to get rid of 28 home care workers and is making cuts of £250,000 in its social services budget. In Powys, there will be cuts of £1.3 million in social services, 49 care workers are going and social services charges are to be tripled. That is quite appalling. I could mention several other areas, but we want to give the Minister as much time as possible to answer some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
We want to know something far more certain about the future of capping. We know what Ministers have said. The Local Government Chronicle cites one Environment Minister, from whose comments it seems that the Government are not so keen on relaxing of capping. At the same time, the Local Government Association is keen that the Government remove capping. We want to know exactly what will happen. If capping goes, what sort of protection will there be for people, especially those on limited incomes just above income-support levels, against hefty rises in council tax bills?
We hear the suggestion that referendums will be held. I know that the Minister is conducting a review on how to make local government more democratic and more accountable to the people. Is he considering referendums in Wales? If so, who will pay for them? They will be extremely expensive. Will the cost come out of local authority budgets? How would a referendum be triggered by ordinary people if they thought that they were to be confronted with higher than reasonable council tax bills?
What will happen to the unified business rate? As a county councillor in west Glamorgan, I experienced business men and women trooping in so that councillors and officers could listen to them and be told that businesses could not meet hefty increases in what was then the business rate. As soon as the consultation process was over, up went the business rate enormously. We do not want such clobbering of businesses in Wales. We want small businesses in particular to thrive. What future protection will there be for such small businesses?
What action is the Minister taking to ensure that local authorities will be able to meet budget demands as a result of changes to advanced corporation tax? When the actuarial changes come about next year, some authorities will face very hefty increases. Will he please take some account of that? What assistance will he give them?
What assurance will he give local authorities that, when the assembly is up and running, it does not top-slice for its pet projects some authorities' revenue support grants? Will he assure local authorities that the money will find its way through to them, especially given the new formula that we are talking about?
I mentioned education in an intervention. We need assurances that the money that has been provided will find


its way into the classroom. Despite what the Secretary of State said about the Western Mail, I shall quote a letter written by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), which it reported. The letter says:
I do not accept that funding for schools will fall or that resources will be swallowed up in meeting teachers' pay increases. The overhang of the 1997 pay settlement will cost around £7m in 1998–1999 and the pay offer announced last week will cost around £17m. In a number of cases, these costs or a proportion of them will be covered by local authorities' planned increases in underlying provision for education. Even if this was not so, around half of the new revenue money would still be available to schools to rectify existing problems or invest in new teaching posts or other provision.
Will the extra money find its way into schools or is it possible that some of it will go towards the teachers' pay settlement, and therefore not fulfil the promise on class sizes made during the general election campaign?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes mentioned local authority debt, which is enormous. It is more than £2 billion in Wales. We need to know the net figure. Interest will be paid on it. How much does each authority pay in interest on debt? Local authorities which are taking out new loans at higher interest rates will be paying much more.
The settlement for Wales is predictable and had been predicted. Wales is living on the never-never. It is up to its neck in debt. The settlement means cuts in social services, and it hits the aging population and children's school dinners. Local authorities are facing enormous uncertainty. In certain circumstances, council tax bills have been hiked by 17 per cent. We have always said that, if the people vote Labour, they will pay more and get less. With this settlement, we have been proved right.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): This debate has turned out to be very interesting. Opposition Members have filled it with internal contradictions and crocodile tears. Before I turn to the major concerns that have been aired, about some of the practical applications of the money available, I should take up some of the technical questions asked by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the effect of paragraph 3.2 of the report. Two assumptions are made in calculating revenue support grant. First, we assume that the council tax base used in calculating the revenue support grant is the full tax base of the authority. No allowance is made for assumptions of different rates of collection between authorities. Every authority is treated the same. Secondly, we do not take account of what might be termed very local charges which a local authority may visit on a small part of its area. The revenue support grant is based on the assumption that all local authorities will collect all their council tax. I shall write in more detail to the right hon. Gentleman on that issue if he so desires.
The right hon. Member for Devizes asked about an error in the report. Its origin lay in a mistake in the credit approval figure for Carmarthenshire county council. As a result, Carmarthenshire's SSA has been increased in the revised report by about £137,000. That has meant that the SSA of other authorities has had to be recalculated. The largest reduction was £15,000, and the majority of reductions were about £5,000.
On the outstanding loan debt, as the right hon. Member for Devizes will know, local authority capital expenditure is funded through a mixture of grants and credit approvals—their borrowing. The costs of serving outstanding debt are met through the revenue support grant settlement. In 1998–99, authorities in Wales will be able to invest about £500 million in capital projects funded by a mixture of grant and borrowing.
The debt figures on which the RSG calculations are based show an increase of about 10 per cent. over the equivalent figures last year. Most local authority debt is held with the Public Works Loan Board, although the overall proportion is falling.
The assumptions on repayment rates in the report are based on an average of three years' repayments made or budgeted to be made by local authorities—that is, their actual repayments.

Mr. Hayes: Can the Minister give me some assessment of the likely effects of any supplementary credit approvals on local authorities? As he will know, authorities can apply on the basis of particular schemes or projects for supplementary approval to borrow. Secondly, what are his estimates for Welsh local authorities in terms of capital receipts and the reinvestment of capital receipts in projects as a result of the disposal of assets?

Mr. Griffiths: In relation to capital receipts, it is planned that next year about £34 million, if my memory serves me correctly, will be made available for local authorities to obtain credit approvals. On the more general question, we always aim to ensure that such credit approvals are affordable and local government can make the repayments.
I know that the issue that the right hon. Member for Devizes is keen to have settled is the definition of a centroid. The word is explained in one way in paragraph 17 on page 14 of the report, but to put it in terms that both of us can understand, a centroid is each authority's centre of gravity in terms of population. Once determined, it is used to reflect the effect that the pattern of population has on the cost of delivering services. It is such a straightforward concept that I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand it from the beginning.
As several hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, we inherited a situation in which British local government had been subjected to under-investment for almost two decades. The position had become especially acute over the past five years, when the previous Government's revenue spending plans did not even keep pace with inflation, let alone make adequate provision for increased demographic and service pressures on local government.
In that context, it is especially galling to hear the hypocritical way in which Opposition Members such as the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) speak about the present settlement, which is so much better than the settlements made by the Conservative Government.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the start of the debate, we are determined to tackle and rectify that inheritance. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) spoke of hope for the future. Yes, with a Labour Government there is hope for the future. My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff,


North (Ms Morgan), for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), and for Gower (Mr. Caton) were right to express the view that things are beginning to move in the right direction, but that there is more to be done.
We accept the fact that there is more to be done. We cannot rectify in one year 18 years of neglect of local government in Wales, but we are determined to rectify some of the major problems. We see that as a task for this Parliament, and perhaps even beyond. There is no magic formula by which we can conjure up the money needed, and yes, we made a commitment to the electorate at large about our overall spending plans. It is true that it has taken us some time to work out what resources to make available for local government and public services in Wales.
None the less, let us look at the settlement before the House. We are certainly making more money available than was provided for in the Conservative spending plans. The 2.7 per cent. increase in the Welsh block has not simply meant a 2.7 per cent. increase in the money made available to local government. Local government has more than that.
We must bear in mind the mixture of the commitments that we have made about public expenditure and the need to support other public services in Wales, such as the health service. We cannot neglect the health service, either, and we have given it, too, an increase above the level of inflation.
There are difficult decisions to be made. In preparation for the decision that we have now made, we announced the global picture in December. The Welsh Local Government Association acknowledged that, although the settlement was hard, it was a fair one in all the circumstances.
That settlement represents a turning point in the attitude of central Government, including the Welsh Office, to local government—an attitude that we did not see from the previous government, which was all too often dismissive and confrontational.

Mr. Evans: If the settlement is so good, will the Minister tell the people of Wales why they will face an average 12 per cent. increase in their council tax, although many councils—I have mentioned Conwy and Powys—are cutting their social services? In Powys, cuts of more than £1 million are being made. If the Government have delivered such a good settlement, why do those cuts have to be made?

Mr. Griffiths: The answer is simple. The settlement is good but it is not perfect. When, after 18 years of Tory government, we find ourselves 500 m down a mine shaft, we cannot leap out in one local government announcement; we must begin to crawl back out, and that is what we are doing. We are not going down, because we have made a 4 per cent. increase in total standard spending and a 3.2 per cent. increase in support for the spending that we propose. Both those increases are above the projected levels of inflation, which the previous Government's last settlement did not even meet.
The minimum increase that any local authority will have if it goes to the top of its capping limit is 3.9 per cent., which is above the rate of inflation. All in all,

total standard spending in Wales for the coming year represents £1,060 for every person in Wales. In England, that figure is £980. External aggregate finance represents £925 per head, which is £160 more than the English figure.
Total maximum local authority budgets under capping represent a figure of £950 in Wales, compared with £880 in England. Those substantial differences reflect the increased needs of the people of Wales. Unlike the previous Secretary of State for Wales, who had a deliberate policy of increasing the council tax without looking at the global picture—

Mr. Hayes: I accept some of what the Minister says, but surely he would acknowledge that the position on the SSAs is patchy. With social services, changes in the way in which the SSA is calculated have hit residential care and other personal social services. That point is not about the settlement alone, but about the Government's decision to change the calculation—

Mr. Griffiths: I let the hon. Gentleman intervene, but I did not expect him to make a speech.
We all accept, as does the Welsh Local Government Association, that the settlement is not perfect. We do not have bundles of money to throw around, but we have provided additional money. At the request of the Welsh Local Government Association, we have provided a further £6 million to help people through a difficult period.
Council tax levels in Wales are about 25 per cent. below those in England. We also have a council tax reduction scheme whereby most council tax payers in Wales will pay only about £1 a week extra. The House should remember all the difficulties that we faced and the commitment for an extra £50 million for schools—money that would not have been forthcoming if the country had been so unfortunate or foolish as to re-elect the Conservatives.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned the problems in Powys, but there is a 4 per cent. increase for that authority. Gwynedd, Conwy, Denbigh and Swansea authorities have all received above-inflation increases. Merthyr has a difficult problem, but it will receive an above-inflation increase and the settlement allows it high per capita spending. We believe that the settlement as a whole is sufficient to enable all authorities to spend at above the level of inflation.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [6 February].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1998–99 (Revised) (HC 541), which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Resolved,
That the Limitation of Council Tax (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1998–99 (Revised) (HC 542), which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 2) (Wales) 1998 (HC 504), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

REFERENDUM

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 8, after ("prescribe,") insert
("but not less than eight weeks after publication of a Bill providing for the establishment of a Greater London Authority and the election of a mayor for Greater London,")

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I am disappointed that the Bill has had to return to the House. Let me make one point crystal clear: the amendments carried in another place are wrecking amendments. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have revealed their true colours. They are embarrassed to admit their open opposition to the Government's plans for a new Greater London authority comprising a directly elected mayor and a separately elected assembly, because they know that this measure is hugely popular with the people of London.
Instead, they have done their utmost to wreck the Bill and delay the referendum. Most disreputably, they have depended on the votes of hereditary peers—who have never had to face an election—to carry amendments that threaten to delay or disrupt the Government's plans to restore democratic citywide government to the people of London.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Does the Minister acknowledge that any hereditary peer can stand, and be elected, in a local government election?

Mr. Raynsford: I entirely accept that any hereditary peer can stand and vote in local government elections. However, they cannot stand in an election for national Government, and have not done so. They owe their positions in the other place not to any electoral process, but to heredity.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the Minister acknowledge that peers are allowed to stand for election to the European Parliament, as many have done? That must be stated.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point. The fact that hereditary peers sit in the other place is solely because of an accident of birth—in some cases, a rather disreputable accident of birth. They may be able to stand in other elections, but their place in Parliament—and their entitlement to pass amendments that wreck the Government's manifesto pledges—owes nothing to the process of election.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister does not want to mislead the House, so he will

have looked at the voting lists from the upper House. The majority of people voting are not hereditary peers, but life peers, including many Labour Front Benchers who were put there by the Prime Minister. Is the hon. Gentleman authorised to attack those people so disgracefully?

Mr. Raynsford: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that question, as I can now give him the precise voting figures in the two relevant Divisions. That will make my point, and he may regret making that intervention.
On 13 January, in the Division on the first amendment, 128 peers were content with the amendment, of whom 63 were life peers and 65 were hereditary peers. Of those not content—in other words, those who supported the Government—there were 122, of whom 101 were life peers and 21 were hereditary peers. Therefore, excluding the hereditary peers, the Government would have had a majority of 38, and the Bill would not have been amended.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) makes the point for me, and, if he wants, I shall give him the voting figures from the second Division. On 29 January, when a second wrecking amendment was made on Report, 111 peers voted content, of whom 52 were life peers and 59 were hereditary peers. The not contents—those who supported the Government line—totalled 104, of whom 90 were life peers and only 14 were hereditary peers.
Again, if the vote had been decided by those people who were there as a result of something other than the right of heredity, there would have been no question of the outcome—the Government's position would have been supported. The Opposition triumphed only through the votes of the hereditary peers, and the Liberal Democrats in particular should be ashamed of relying on hereditary, unelected peers.

Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister tell us the full voting strength of the Labour peers in the House of Lords, and why they were unable to vote at full strength in supporting the Government?

Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted to answer the right hon. Gentleman's point; it will enable me to remind him of the strange antics that occurred in the other place after the first vote.
The Conservative Chief Whip looked embarrassed that the Opposition had won, and expressed concern that they had won a Division that they did not intend to win. The Conservative party had to camouflage that, and pretended, most extraordinarily, that the victory was entirely owing to the Government's failure to muster all their supporters. Has anyone ever heard a more fatuous story? The Conservative party won the vote that it did not intend to win and then blamed the other side. What ridiculous nonsense—it says much about the Opposition.

Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister skirts around the issue wonderfully, but will he now answer the question? Is it not the case that his side did not turn up? He should get on with the debate rather than make all these rather pathetic excuses for the fact that the Government lost.

Mr. Raynsford: As the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, 101 life peers voted for the Government


and only 63 voted for the Opposition, which shows that the Government had a true majority among those people who were there other than through heredity. He says that I linger on this issue, but he should be talking to the hon. Member for South Dorset, who raised the issue—I was simply answering his question. The fact that the Opposition find it embarrassing to hear us answering their questions shows how confused they are.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am amazed tonight, as I have been over the past few weeks, that the Government think that that is a strong point. If they were a radical Government, they would have done something about hereditary peers in their first Queen's Speech, and not have dilly-dallied for so long.
Moreover, some of us resent the idea that Prime Ministers send people to legislate as much as we resent the idea that people should legislate because of their birth. The Bill is about whether decisions should be made by elected representatives or by 10 Downing street. Liberal Democrats would rather the decisions were made in the House of Commons than in 10 Downing street. The life peers were put in the other place by 10 Downing street, not by the elected representatives of the people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the Minister responds to that, let me say that it is now time that we returned to the amendment.

Mr. Raynsford: I will be happy, Mr. Lord, to return to the amendments, but I cannot fail to note the way in which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) enjoys so much the result of the votes in the other place in which his party depended on the hereditary peers to carry amendments it supported—particularly when he himself told this House that he did not agree with one of those propositions. His own party in the other place took a different view—that is typical of the Liberal Democrats. They do not know what they are saying.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That is untrue.

Mr. Raynsford: I remind the hon. Gentleman what he said on 19 November:
The Liberal Democrats take a different view from that of the Conservative party. We are not arguing that it is possible to produce the Bill before we have the referendum".—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 383.]
His counterpart in the other place had an entirely different point of view in the debate in the other House.
I have dealt with that sufficiently, and I shall continue with the matters that you, Mr. Lord, would like me to focus on. Inevitably, the first amendment passed in the other place would delay the referendum. It would simply not be possible to draft a Bill—a massive undertaking—for publication at least eight weeks in advance of the referendum, scheduled for 7 May. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey agreed with that two months ago. He has probably forgotten that, such is the strange way in which the Liberal Democrats operate.
We are committed to setting out the Government's proposals in clear terms. We will do that in the White Paper, as we have always said. We will make this

available to the people of London, but we could not prepare a full Bill covering every aspect in advance of 7 May. Delaying the referendum would add £2 million to £3 million to the cost, as we would no longer be able to make savings by combining the referendum with the local elections on 7 May. That would be a needless waste of public money. If Opposition Members vote in support of the amendment, they must recognise that they are revealing that they are spendthrift with public money, and are prepared to contemplate wasting £2 million to £3 million.

Sir Paul Beresford: The other side of the coin is that the Government are proposing to create a Greater London authority and a mayor; a system that they will wish to last for some considerable time—decades, perhaps 100 years. Surely a little more time to produce a draft Bill so that the people of London know what they are voting for is far more rational and a better use of public money than the Government's rushed proposals.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not know the timetable and the consultation that the Government have been through. We published our proposals in our manifesto less than a year ago. We then published a Green Paper in July which was circulated widely, and we published a summary version to ensure the widest possible availability of information about our proposals. I have spoken at a huge number of meetings involving organisations all around London. We have canvassed the views of Londoners and listened carefully to their responses. We are now framing proposals which will be made available to the people of London in a White Paper. That White Paper—

Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question. If he bears with me, he will hear the answer.
The White Paper will set out in clear language the Government's proposals—all the details. A summary version will be made available and circulated to every household in London. By that means, we will provide in clear English an explanation of the Government's proposals to help the people of London to reach an informed judgment. If the hon. Gentleman really believes that presenting a Bill—written, of necessity, in legal language—will help the process, I have to tell him that he is living on another planet.

Sir Paul Beresford: Under the previous Government, the Labour party was delighted when, on occasion, draft Bills were published. The thinking behind that was to provide not the broad outline, but the details. Having lived under the GLC—whatever its political complexion—as a member of a borough council, I can say that it was important to be able to examine the details. The details will be the key to the relationship between the GLA, the mayor and the boroughs.

Mr. Raynsford: I have given a clear undertaking to the hon. Gentleman and to the House on many occasions that we will publish the full details in a White Paper written in clear English.
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the kind of language which is, of necessity, used in legislation of this type. I quote from the London Government Act 1963, which brought into being the GLC and the structure of the London boroughs. Clause 4 states:
Subject to any provision to the contrary effect made by, or by any instrument made under, this Act or any other Act passed during the same session as this Act (and in particular any provision conferring functions on the Greater London Council), and without prejudice to any express provision so made, the provisions of this section (being provisions designed to confer on the councils of London boroughs as respects their boroughs and on the Common Council as respects the City the functions exercisable by the councils of county boroughs as respects their boroughs or by the existing London county council as respects the metropolitan boroughs or, as the case may be, the City) shall have effect as from 1st April 1965 as respects any enactment (hereafter in this section referred to as an 'existing enactment') contained in any public general Act passed before this Act or in any other such Act passed during the same session as this Act.
That was simply one clause. I honestly challenge the hon. Gentleman to tell me how publication of such material is likely to improve the debate about points of principle which will be clearly set out in the White Paper.

Sir Paul Beresford: I recognise the complexity, and I did so when I was a borough councillor—although, in my profession, I can count to 32 and not much further, because I run out of teeth to count on. The local authorities are deadly concerned about this, and will be employing lawyers to look at and translate the measure to give them the ifs, ands and buts. They will have an influence on the voting public. Their opinion will be listened to, so the Bill would be of use to them.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman, as always, is wrong. He entirely fails to understand that the Government have consulted in detail about this issue. We have prepared a consultation paper, and we have consulted widely among the people of London. We are committed to publishing a White Paper and to circulating to every household in London a summary version outlining all the details in the Government's proposals. It is truly ludicrous of the hon. Gentleman to cast any doubt on the Government's commitment to consult and to provide information to the people of London. We have made it clear that we are committed to informing people—that is part of our programme.
A requirement to publish a Bill before the referendum would mean unnecessary complications, and would delay the referendum. It would add to the costs of the referendum, and would do little to assist Londoners in assessing the substance of our proposals. In pressing the amendment, the Opposition are seeking to deny the people of London the opportunity to vote on their future.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about the amendment is that it is not even consistent with the other amendment carried in the other place. The other amendment proposes to establish a two-question referendum, and would transform the referendum from being a test of assent to a given proposition into a very different consultative exercise on different options. If a Bill had to be published setting out the separate options—as implied by the second amendment—that would add to the complexity of the Bill and the time required to draft it.
The amendments pull in completely opposite directions. One supposedly seeks greater certainty about what is on offer; the other deliberately introduces

uncertainty by seeking to test opinion on different options. Together, they are designed to destroy a clearly set out commitment by the Government in our manifesto to implement proposals for a directly elected authority for London, which should comprise two separately elected elements—a mayor and an assembly—and to test that proposition with the people of London.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Minister will recall Labour's manifesto better than I do, but I do not recall that it specified a particular manner of consultation or form in which the electorate of London were to be consulted about the proposals.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman questions our commitment to testing the opinion of Londoners. We have said clearly that we will test the opinion of Londoners, and we will do so in the most sensible and cost-effective way, at a time when the people of London are already going to the polls. In that way, there will be no need to organise a separate referendum on another occasion at the extra cost of £2 million to £3 million. The hon. Gentleman obviously cannot recognise the need for economy and the common sense of holding a referendum on the same date as the borough council elections.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No. I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman, and I am about to conclude. The amendments seek to undermine and destroy a clear Government manifesto commitment. They are wrecking amendments, and I have no hesitation in urging the House to reverse them.

Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister has spoken for some time on the amendment. I do not object to that, because it is an important subject. He made much of the position of the House of Lords, the unelected hereditary peers and their impertinence in intervening in the debate. I notice that Labour Members were not quite so free with their condemnation when the House of Lords defeated Mr. Murdoch on the issue of his press empire and competition. According to others in the press, some Labour Members may take advantage of that amendment at a later stage.

Mr. Clive Efford: Name them.

Sir Norman Fowler: I would be delighted to name them, but the Labour Whip is probably better placed to do so.
The Minister must accept that a second chamber will, from time to time, say no, and will allow the Government the opportunity to think again. That is not a constitutional challenge, but the entirely legitimate role of a second chamber. The trouble with the Government is that they are not prepared to consider any arguments used against them, even when they are clearly in the wrong. That was clear from the passage of the Bill through the House, let alone its progress in the other place.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend has been a Member of the House longer than I have, and experienced the 18 years of the previous Conservative Government.


Does he remember any condemnation from the Labour party of the House of Lords defeating or amending any clause when we were in government?

Sir Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend makes a good point. When Labour was in opposition, it took every opportunity afforded by any dissent in the House of Lords.
In the case of the amendment, there is no reason why anyone should talk of constitutional threats. The Government lost by 118 votes to 122 votes at 3.45 in the afternoon. They could have won, but they failed to get their vote out. They did not get the support of their side. For example, where was Lord Hattersley, who had only recently been made a working peer? I could hazard a guess.
I am told by those who know in the other place that 52 Labour peers failed to vote, including three Ministers. If that is so, the Minister should ask the forgiveness of the House. The real problem, which the Minister touched on, was that the Government expected the Liberal Democrats to support them. [Interruption.] Well, expectations are free, but—to give the Minister his due—there was some substance in that expectation.
When the issue at the heart of the amendment—the need to publish the Bill before the referendum—was debated in Committee in the House, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that he was opposed to it. He said:
The Liberal Democrats take a different view from that of the Conservative party. We are not arguing that it is possible to produce the Bill before we have the referendum".—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 383.]
However, when the issue was discussed by the Lords, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Baroness Hamwee, said that, ideally, the referendum would take place after a Bill had passed through both Houses of Parliament. She said that she did not intend to argue for that to happen, but she proposed an amendment that would have meant that the Bill would have at least been published before the referendum. It was in that state of total indecision that the Liberal Democrats bravely decided to abstain. The result was that the Government lost the vote. That is the true history of the proceedings.
The significance of the Government's defeat goes wider. Although it has not been announced, representatives of the Liberal Democrats and Ministers of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions form a small committee on local government. The plot gets thicker.
Thus, on Thursday 15 January, the second meeting of that committee took place. I understand that it was attended, from the Liberal Democrats, by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who had chosen that dark room in which to lie down and take the tablets—as he was once famously directed to do by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
On the other side of the table was the Minister for London and Construction, supported by three civil servants. Unsurprisingly, the Minister was miffed. He pointed out that, in the Commons, the Liberal Democrats

had not supported an amendment seeking the publication of a Bill before the referendum, but that in the Lords they had abstained on the issue, leading to the Government's defeat. The defence offered to that charge by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was that the Liberal Democrats had not expected the amendment to be passed, and that was why they had abstained. They got it wrong.
Far from the success of the amendment being a constitutional issue of real importance, it was nothing of the sort. It was a Government cock-up. They were let down by their Liberal Democrat allies, and nothing could be less surprising. The Liberal Democrats are in danger of giving indecision a bad name.
Even more curious is their role in opposition. Periodically, they burst from cover proclaiming that they are the real Opposition, normally on the basis of the number of written questions that they have tabled. Most hon. Members would not regard that as the acid test. We now find that the Liberal Democrats are in cosy discussions with the Government all the time. In his relationship with the Government, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, far from being the Lloyd George of the first world war, is more like the Marshal Main of the second world war.
Lady Hamwee had more sense than the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. That may not be difficult, but it is worthy of some attention, because she was right when she said that, ideally, a referendum should take place after a Bill covering the substantive proposals had been thoroughly scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that the Minister himself will confirm that that is precisely the case that we have made throughout.
The Government have chosen to hold a referendum. That is their choice. It follows that the referendum should be held only when the electorate are in the best position to judge. It should be held when the people know exactly what they will get. Therefore, it should be held after the legislation has been debated and decided on by Parliament. If we are to have referendums, that is how the Conservatives believe they should be approached.
The Government cannot even claim that the referendum is a permanent part of their approach to local government. They have decided on a referendum for London, but they have not done so for the so-called executive mayors of whom the Government have made so much in the past few days. There will be no referendum for executive mayors if they are proposed in Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool or any other town or borough, because the legislation does not allow for it.
Where do the provisions that the Government have been making so much of, such as executive mayors and cabinets, come from? Ironically, they do not come from the Government. It is not Government legislation, but a private Member's Bill, introduced by one of his Lordships in the House of Lords. That is the Bill that the Government are relying on, and they trumpet that it is going to be a revolutionary change to local government. They say that provisions for a referendum would unacceptably increase the size of the Bill.

Mr. Raynsford: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: I have with me the Deputy Prime Minister's response to that, and that, as I understand it, is the Government's case.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman was rather churlish about the Bill being proposed in the other place by Lord Hunt. Does he accept that it was reasonable for a Government interested in encouraging democratic innovation in local government to build on the recommendations of the all-party group chaired by Lord Hunt, which received the support of all parties in the upper House, and to accept the Bill that he drafted based on the recommendations as a sensible basis for continuing? Is that not a good and sensible way for any Government interested in reform to proceed?

Sir Norman Fowler: No, I would not accept that. Something as profound—that is not my view but that of the Minister—as the proposals to reform local government should be in a Government Bill. The Government should take it through. It should go through Committee and have proper scrutiny.
Perhaps the Minister for Transport in London will tell us what that proper scrutiny will be. With a private Member's Bill coming from the Lords, it is anything but clear what scrutiny there will be. We are dealing with profound changes. There will be executive mayors in boroughs, cabinets and inner cabinets. There is no provision for a referendum. I want the hon. Lady to give some idea what scrutiny the House of Commons will be able to give that legislation. We are not prepared to nod it through on a Friday afternoon, if that is what the Minister for London and Construction thinks.
Ideally, a referendum should follow the passing of legislation. It is only then that Parliament will have decided on the position. A White Paper is no more than a statement of intent. Much of the devil will be in the Bill's detail. I stress that the amendment that the Lords passed did not ask for the legislation to be passed before a referendum took place. All it asked for was for the Bill to be published. It is a very modest proposition, but one that would have value for the public.
The Government have promised a White Paper, but we do not know how much detail it will include. The Green Paper is little more than a series of generalisations, together with no fewer than 62 questions to the public. We do not know whether all those questions will be answered in the White Paper.
Will we have enough information on the proposed electoral system? What will be the position on constituencies? What will be the exact functions of the new assembly and mayor? Will the police authority for the Metropolitan police have a majority of elected members from the new Greater London Authority? What will be the exact pay of the mayor and assembly members? Should assembly members be paid at all?
Those issues will doubtless be dealt with generally, and in some cases particularly, in the White Paper but anyone with experience of dealing with legislation in this House knows that there is a vast difference between a White Paper and a published Bill in which one can see all the details.

Mr. Raynsford: I want to help the hon. Gentleman. Rather than having him continue to ask such questions at considerable length, I remind him of our earlier debates,

in which I gave clear undertakings that we will publish a full White Paper setting out in detail the Government's conclusions on the issues that he raised.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a great discourtesy to the House for the Minister to keep referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) as "the hon. Member"? The Minister has been here long enough. Surely he could learn the distinction between honourable and right honourable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is normal to obey the courtesies. I am sure that it was only an oversight on the Minister's part.

Mr. Raynsford: I regret that, in the course of my intervention, I failed to observe the normal courtesy. It was in no way disrespectful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), but a result of my wish to concentrate on the key point that I was making.
The Government have already given clear undertakings that the White Paper will set out in detail and in plain English all the key issues about structures, powers, the method of election and the operation of the Greater London authority that the people of London will need to know about to reach a judgment. Is that not a sensible way to proceed?

Sir Norman Fowler: No. It is better than the Green Paper, but the devil is in the detail. One must see the Bill. Everyone understands that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It is a pity. I know that it is terribly unfashionable for Ministers to want to be held to account, but that is the only way that we can hold people to account. It is the only way for proper scrutiny to take place so that the public can make a judgment.

Mr. Raynsford: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: I will give way again, but, as he realises, the Minister is extending the debate.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way for the third time, which will be the last time that I seek to intervene. If he believes that the path he outlines is the essential way forward, why did his Government, when it abolished the Greater London council, not publish any Bill in advance of abolition or allow any opportunity for the people of London to express their view through a referendum?

Sir Norman Fowler: We have had this debate, and answered that point, before. We told the Minister about our manifesto commitment, the White Paper and the paving Bill. We also told him how it was evident to everyone apart from him and the Minister for Transport in London that, not only was there public resentment about the fact that the GLC was not working, but that the other metropolitan authorities were also not working.
The Minister must remember that the other authorities, such as mine in the west midlands, were abolished at the same time. As a constituency Member, I had precisely


two letters of complaint about the abolition of the West Midlands county council, both from people who worked for it

Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend remember the appreciation of the Labour party in opposition when the previous Government managed to publish draft bills? Labour now denies that it was able to clarify problems because of that.

Sir Norman Fowler: The point is made. The Minister understands it, although he cannot give any answers on it.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am trying desperately to find where the Bill says that the Minister will produce a White Paper. He has given assurances, but if they mean anything, they should be in this Bill. A draft Bill on the authority would be even better.

Sir Norman Fowler: Absolutely, but I accept the Minister's assurances that he will provide a White Paper.
We will doubtless be given generalised answers to some of our questions in the White Paper, but anyone with any interest in the matter wants to see the detail, the exact provisions, of what the Government propose. At present, the House and the public do not know what the provisions will be. Even would-be contenders for the job of mayor, such as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), do not know.
I do not want to be critical of the hon. Lady. We are very anxious that she should be Labour's candidate for mayor. We will give her all the help we can in that respect. If she can take with her the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), we would have the dream ticket. The point I put is that the White Paper will not provide the answers.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is especially important to see the text of a Bill that has constitutional implications? Constitution-making is a legal process. To see intentions in the White Paper is one thing, but to see the structure within which conflicts are to be resolved in legal terms is doubly important in constitution-making.

Sir Norman Fowler: Absolutely. My hon. Friend, with his experience, is correct.
The amendment was a thoroughly sensible change for the House of Lords to make. If the Government had wanted to defeat it, they should have mobilised their voting strength. It cuts no ice now to complain about constitutional challenges. That is absurd, and it is recognised as absurd. The second chamber should not simply rubber-stamp without alteration every piece of legislation that comes from this House.
There is a case of real substance in the amendment. If there is to be a referendum, the public are entitled to the maximum amount of detailed information on which to make up their minds. So far, all that we have been offered is a Green Paper that asks 61 questions. We have now been given the promise of a White Paper that will give some generalised replies; but the acid test must be the published Bill itself.
The Government have decreed that the referendum will take place before the legislation comes to the House. We disagree with that as a matter of principle, but the very least that the Government can do is to publish the Bill in good time for the referendum, so that the public know what the position is and can decide.

Mr. Wilkinson: We have heard a wide-ranging speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who has demolished the Government's case. I believe that Labour peers stayed away deliberately. I can understand Lord Hattersley not getting to the Division Lobby by 3.45 of an afternoon, but the other 51 ought to have been there. Of course, it suited the Government very well that they should not be, and it suited their Liberal collaborators as well, inasmuch as those parties wish to discredit the other place and find some rationale for their programme to abolish hereditary peerages.
The peers have done their job well. I shall seek to explain why. First, unlike the Minister for London and Construction, I believe that the additional cost of holding the referendum at a more appropriate time, after publication of the Bill, would be money extremely well spent because the electors of London would have time to judge the legislative proposals. If the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield were heeded, the Bill would have been passed by Parliament before the referendum, and the voters would know exactly what they would have to pay for. They would not be required to endorse a blank cheque, as they are under the Government's proposals. We are all well aware that a White Paper is binding on no one. The chances are that, when the Bill emerges from both Houses of Parliament, it will be very different in content and prescription from what the White Paper originally suggested.
The Government claim that they will save the people of London £2 million in May, but the people of London could be saved hundreds of millions of pounds if they were allowed to make a proper, informed judgment on the legislative proposals enacted by Parliament.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting his speech. I have just been to the Vote Office to get a copy of the consultation document on local democracy and community leadership in England, which I understand was published a few days ago. Copies were probably sent to our colleagues in London. Unfortunately, there are no copies of the document in the Vote Office now. The Vote Office has asked the Department responsible to rush copies over, but they have not arrived. Is it in order for the House to debate a matter to which a document is highly relevant when the document is not available and the Department has failed to produce it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the debate can continue without the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Sir Norman Fowler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We accept your ruling, but can it be stated explicitly so that Ministers understand that the


document has not been made available to hon. Members. I had to get in touch with the Deputy Prime Minister's office to get a copy. That is no way to treat the House of Commons. [Interruption.] If Ministers wish to display the arrogance that the Minister for Transport in London is displaying now, that is fine, but documents relevant to a debate on local government should be available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, the document does not relate directly to the matter before the House.

Mr. Wilkinson: The Government's proposals to ignore the Lords amendment put the people of London in double jeopardy. The campaign over the referendum will draw people's attention away from the key issue in London—how boroughs are governed. In the Evening Standard tonight there is an article about a social services inspectorate report. The headline is "New storm over abuse of children in care". It relates to Hillingdon borough council, a Labour-controlled council. It is clearly in dereliction of its duty to the children in care in that borough. The referendum campaign will be conducted during the borough election campaign. The electors of my borough will wish to focus on such local issues without distractions. The same will be the case in Hackney, where similar problems pertain, and in other boroughs where Labour has been in control.
The people of London will not have any time between 23 March, when the White Paper is to be published, and 7 May. As the Minister is well aware, that is the May holiday period. Many people will be away. It is just not right that proposals of such significance for London's future and potentially so costly to people should be so cursorily examined. If Parliament could go into the real details, as my right hon. Friend suggests, through the legislative procedures of both Houses, we could find out what the people of London would have to pay for. The White Paper may, for example, say in general terms how the Government hope that the Greater London authority will be financed, but the sums to be raised and the financial prescriptions will have to be laid out in the financial schedules of the legislation.
The Minister for Transport in London has an intense personal interest in these matters. One would have thought that the hon. Lady, who is such a keen potential candidate for mayor, would seek to have those matters brought before Londoners—but no. As with so many of the Government's proposals, the proposals are long on generality and short on detail, long on rhetoric and very short on practicalities. The people of London deserve better.
The voting system is of intense importance. My constituents live in Hillingdon, an outer London borough with particular problems associated with the green belt and London airport, and it is essential that there should be an electoral system that represents their local interests. Should the assembly be formed, there should be a borough representative on it. That may not be what transpires. I am sure that my constituents would vote for an assembly only if they knew and could be guaranteed that a form of representation would exist which secured their local interests in that authority.
All we know from the leaks from Peter Kellner in the Evening Standard and so on is that it is likely that there will be 14 elected members for all of London, and another

11 on a list. We can be no more certain of that, even if it is confirmed in the White Paper, unless it is also confirmed in a Bill passed by Parliament.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister for London and Construction would have kept the commitment to the House if the Government had simply published one copy of the White Paper, even if they then did not bother to send it to anyone else. Tonight's behaviour is typical of the Government. They have said that they have produced a Green Paper, but it is not available to all hon. Members, and is probably not even available to Labour Members, who have not sought to intervene in the debate. Surely we should get a commitment from the Government to make sure that the information is available.

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is technically right.

Mr. Raynsford: It is only right that the House should be reminded that I gave a clear undertaking earlier in the debate—and I am sorry if the hon. Member for South Dorset, (Mr. Bruce) did not hear—that we would not just be publishing a White Paper, but circulating a summary version of it to every household in London.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am glad of that important clarification, although it does not resolve the issue at the heart of the debate. I welcome the Minister's confirmation of his previous announcement, however.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend has referred to the electoral arrangements. I wonder whether he has noticed that the White Paper will almost certainly be published before the point at which, under the Bill, the Local Government Commission provides advice on those arrangements, whereas, necessarily, the Bill, when published, will have to implement that advice from the Local Government Commission. There is a difference of substance between the White Paper and the Bill on the question of the electoral arrangements.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for raising that extremely important point. It may seem a detail to the Minister, who is chatting away to the prospective mayoral candidate from Hampstead and Highgate, but my hon. Friend has raised a matter of crucial importance. It demonstrates the way in which democracy is being defrauded in London.
The Minister said that the Government's proposal to overturn their lordships amendment was good for democracy and for common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has demolished the democracy argument, and I cannot see how it makes sense to press ahead with a referendum to confirm the proposals for a Greater London authority without the genuine endorsement of the electorate of London for those proposals.
Surely the Government want their proposals to endure and do not want them to be subsequently changed by successor Governments. Surely the Minister does not want a Greater London council abolition mark II to be inflicted on the Greater London authority. I imagine not. He would be much more likely to get the proposals right if the people of London were able to make a fully informed judgment of their validity.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has mentioned the electoral system, which is germane to the argument. All we know about it—and again our source is Mr. Kellner, who has a good entree into Labour circles—is that there will be different systems for the mayoralty and for the assembly. We need this to be confirmed in legislation because, if the people of London are only to be offered one question, they will need to understand whether the assembly will have authority based upon an electoral system with which they agree for the election of both political personalities. They do not just want to be offered some conjectural or hypothetical proposition in a White Paper, which is subject to subsequent change. They want to know about the electoral system that the Government intend to propose. It is a matter of intense significance to the people of London, as is the question of the constituencies.
Without being too parochial, it is important to know in legislation the actual pattern of the constituencies. Will Hillingdon be one constituency with Harrow, Ealing or Hounslow, all of which are different, distinct communities, with different interests? The answer is of immense importance. It is no good for a White Paper just to say that there will be large constituencies combining five parliamentary constituencies or something of that kind, and for the boundary commissioners to be given the job of creating those constituencies. The people of London need to know much more precisely what geographical area their assemblymen will represent. Those are matters of intense interest.
The Government may say that the timing is inappropriate, but that is manifest nonsense, as are all their other arguments. The Government could still introduce the necessary Bill in the Queen's Speech for the next Session and allow it to be published, as the amendment suggests, eight weeks before a referendum. It could be perfectly possible to publish the White Paper on 23 March, giving the spring and the summer for a full consultation process and a debate on the White Paper in the House, followed by the publication of the Bill. It would be perfectly possible to do that in good time for a referendum in the autumn or thereabouts.
I do not accept any of the arguments that the Government have put to us and to the people of London. The people of London are being defrauded of their democratic entitlement to know exactly what are the legislative proposals that they will be called on to endorse in a referendum. It is all very well for the Government to use this issue as another means of mocking the democratic validity and judgment of the other place. In this particular case, their lordships House has done the people of London a signal service and it is thoroughly improper for the Government to pretend otherwise.

Mr. John Horam: The Minister for London and Construction was remarkably partisan when he attempted to persuade the House to reject the amendment from another place. That was a pity, especially as it contrasted strikingly with the even-handed approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). The Minister was partisan and somewhat petulant in his rejection of, and his constant interventions on, the reasonable and strongly democratic arguments made from the Conservative Benches.
We are debating something that is fundamental to London, to democracy and to the constitution. I should have thought that, given the history of London democracy and control, the Minister, of all people, with his concerns, would have wanted to foster at least some areas of consensus. There are areas of consensus—for example, regarding the mayor. Nevertheless, in my view, the hon. Gentleman went out of his way to present his objections to the Lords amendment in a particularly partisan and petulant way. I regret that. He would have had the House more on his side if he had been much more even-handed and fair in his approach to our arguments.

8 pm

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend noticed that Conservative Members keep being called to speak and that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are having difficulty in finding any Labour Member to support the Government's arguments? Is it not strange to see a Government Whip, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), sitting among those silent Labour Members, ensuring that they do not intervene? Perhaps that tells us what Back Benchers really think of democracy and what their Ministers are trying to get up to.

Mr. Horam: Perhaps the Government Whip is having difficulty in persuading his hon. Friends to speak in the debate.

Mr. Tony McNulty: It is too early.

Mr. Horam: Perhaps they have very little to say. Perhaps they should say something. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can persuade them—

Mr. Stephen Pound: Thinking of rejoining us, are you?

Mr. Horam: Oh, no.
The Minister's argument was twofold. First, he said that the Lords amendment was a "wrecking" amendment. Secondly, he said that we should be "ashamed" of supporting the Lords amendment. That is complete nonsense. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Far too many remarks are being bandied about the Chamber from both sides. I plead with Members now to listen in silence to the hon. Gentleman who is on his feet.

Mr. Horam: Both the charges that have been levelled against us are bogus. The Minister has been in the House long enough to know that "wrecking amendment" is a specific term, normally used of an amendment that is intended to get a Bill abandoned or sidetracked. It is not a question of inserting into a Bill a provision about the timetabling another Bill. Lords amendment No. 1 is in no sense a wrecking amendment. It would not even wreck the timetable of the Government's proposals or the critical path along which they must pass.
As the Minister knows, we could hold a referendum later in the year. It need not be held on 7 May; it could be held in June, July or August.

Mr. Raynsford: It costs money.

Mr. Horam: From a sedentary position, the Minister says that it costs money. But let us establish that the


amendment is in no sense a wrecking amendment, and that the Minister's remarks were extravagant and went over the top. It is not meant in any sense to be a wrecking amendment. We do not mean to wreck the Bill; we merely mean, in a more democratic and more sensible way, to give the people of London the opportunity to express their views about a very important matter which could determine the government of London for years, indeed decades, to come.

Sir Sydney Chapman: If the Minister is going to use the argument that it would save money to hold a referendum on the day of the London borough elections on 7 May, may I point out that he could equally save money by not holding a referendum? The Government have chosen to hold a referendum, and it is better to get the details into the public domain, so that the people of London can make an informed choice in the referendum.

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend is quite right.
The second argument that the Minister used was that the amendment would cost money. It is amazing for the Labour party to level at the Conservatives the charge that we are spendthrift—that was the word used. It is suggested that we are needlessly wasting Government money. In fact, about £2 million to £3 million is involved.
Why are the Government holding the referendum on 7 May? They are doing so because they wish to conceal the spending record of Labour councils in London. [Laughter.] Absolutely. In the current financial year, the average Labour council is spending at a rate 61 per cent. higher than the average Conservative council. I am citing figures for the whole country. The position in London, where we have these vastly expensive, practically bankrupt councils, must be even worse.
By accusing others of wanting to spend an extra £2 million to £3 million, the Government are trying to conceal the fact that Labour councils are recklessly spending millions and millions of pounds of council tax payer's and taxpayer's money. This is a subject for debate. My hon. Friend who spoke last, my hon. Friend the Member for—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Ruislip-Northwood.

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made the point that the people of London, in their boroughs, need to focus on the real issues; and the real issues are the comparative spending levels of Conservative councils and Labour councils.
I am sorry to say that the Liberals are in the same boat. The average Liberal council costs 44 per cent. more than a Conservative council. That shows the extent to which the Liberals are tarred with the same brush. That is the real issue that Londoners should be allowed to debate and focus on, not the ridiculous amount of £2 million to £3 million to hold a referendum on a separate date, when we could focus on the real issues.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) said in one or two interventions, the real issue is that the Government are showing their lack of trust in parliamentarians and the people of London. There is a difference between a White Paper and a Bill. Hon. Members of long standing have seen the difference

between a White Paper and a Bill. I do not make a partisan point here. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do.''] As a parliamentarian, I have often regretted the difference between a White Paper that has been brought to the House and a subsequent Bill. It is a fact of life, and we can no more trust the Government then we could any previous Government, Labour or Conservative, not to amend the detail of a Bill following a perfectly faithful representation in the House of what is in the White Paper.
The Minister tries to have it both ways by saying that the White Paper will have all the detail, but if it has all the details, he can publish the Bill. If it has all the details, there is no problem in publishing a Bill in due course. So he is really—

Mr. Ian Bruce: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will allow me to make this point. On Friday 30 January, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) had published a great deal of information about the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill that he was introducing to the House. The Bill was not published until almost the day before it was debated, and we noticed that all the road traffic targets had been taken out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we should deal with the Bill before the House.

Mr. Horam: I entirely agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The problem is that the Government are ignoring the very sensible and experienced views of Parliament in this respect. All Governments have changed Bills, sometimes as a consequence of genuine representations, and in some cases because they have got it wrong in a White Paper and wish to make amendments when the Bill is published. Quite apart from that, many details come up in the course of drafting legislation suitable for the House of Commons, which necessitate changes in the detail of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield is right about that. Prudence is wise in that respect. It is a pity, from the viewpoint, once again, of parliamentary rectitude and common sense, that we are taking this path.
If I may say so, as a London Member, who represents a constituency on the very edge of London, in Bromley, I have a particular concern—[Laughter.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) is laughing about. [HON. MEMBERS: "But we do."] I am not surprised about that.
I wish that Orpington was not a part of London. Many of my constituents wish that we were still part of Kent. Perhaps there should be a third question in the referendum, in addition to the two that we are advocating, so that some of us could request to secede from London as we have it now. That would be very popular among my constituents.
In Orpington, being part of the borough of Bromley, which is obviously at the edge of London, we have specific anxieties about this approach, which we would wish to have aired. Many details that appear to be unsettled as yet—issues that worry councillors and other constituents in my area—would be resolved by the full publication of a Bill.
Take transport. The mayor will apparently be able to take action to implement Londonwide strategies, including transport policy. The role of the assembly will be to scrutinise the activities of other publicly funded


London organisations, presumably including transport organisations. We should not forget the London development agency. That curious body is the third leg of that strange stool.

Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a particular difficulty in that the White Paper will be published in the week beginning 23 March but the Government's White Paper on integrated transport policy is not expected until late May or early June? The London Chamber of Commerce told us today that transport is the most important issue for business, yet the transport White Paper will be followed by the Bill and then the referendum.

Mr. Horam: The fact is that policy is evolving in many areas, including transport and health. A recent White Paper on health in London set out new proposals for allocating health expenditure in the capital. Those proposals must be stitched in with the Government's other proposals for London government. We must think more carefully about transport and health issues.
It is not simply that we have been promised an integrated transport policy in the near future, or that the London development agency, the mayor and the assembly have an interest in these matters, but the Government also have an interest.
Take, for example, the recent events concerning the channel tunnel rail link. I do not criticise the Government for what has happened; they followed their policy and they are now allowing various parties to come forward within 30 days to offer alternative proposals that may allow the project to succeed. I hope that it will succeed. Railtrack has produced an alternative proposal, which was canvassed widely in the press recently, whereby the project will be changed so that the link ends at the boundaries of London and proceeds on the old track. I am wholly hostile to that proposal, which misses the point of the original idea of a separate channel tunnel rail link.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must return to the amendment in hand.

Mr. Horam: I shall certainly apprehend your reasonable comments most carefully, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not pursue that point, but I believe that the Government should consider it carefully.
The three bodies proposed by the Government's legislation as well as the Government have responsibilities in this area. Policy is evolving in many fields, and health and transport have been mentioned. I think that it is right for the Government to give the House and the Opposition parties an opportunity to say what they think. The people of London should also have an idea of what the total package will be at the end of the day. At present, the policy is being revealed in dribs and drabs—in some cases via a White Paper, in others via a statement and, in this case, via a Bill before Parliament. That is extremely unsatisfactory. I hope that the Government will consider the matter more carefully and allow the amendment to stand.

Mr. Paul Burstow: While listening to the opening of the debate earlier this evening,

I was rather struck by the mock rage expressed at what had occurred in the other place on the two amendments. I was reminded of the debate in this place during early stages of the Bill when the Minister at the Dispatch Box challenged the Liberal Democrats and the Opposition to come up with a two-question referendum that worked. As that has happened, it is hardly surprising that the legislation should return to this place.
It is hardly our fault if we rise to the challenge offered by the Minister and deliver on it in another place. We are here tonight because of that challenge. We would not need to be here if the Minister had allowed a similar amendment when the Bill was last before the House. The Liberal Democrats will take no criticism from the Minister about the importance of the role of the House of Lords. It is important that the points that we raised in the House are pursued and debated in another place.
It has been interesting to watch and listen to the debate. Until now, Opposition Members have bobbed up and down as though they had pins on their seats, and Government Members have appeared to be "Blutacked" to their seats. I look forward to hearing from Government Back Benchers whether they have questions for the Government on how the Greater London authority will work in practice. [Interruption.] As Labour Members remain stuck to their seat, they are willing to make only sedentary comments. Having wound them up, I shall now progress to other matters that may not make them any happier.
8.15 pm
In a few months, the people of London will be asked to decide on the future of government in our city. Most Londoners want a citywide authority to tackle the challenges facing any world city. However, the debate about how the new government will work has barely begun. So far, it has been hijacked by debate about the personalities involved—even tonight, we have heard about the personalities who may be candidates in the election for mayor. Londoners face the prospect of two more years of debate about who governs London rather than how London will be governed—style over substance. However, the substance matters, and the Government must start to provide some answers to important questions.
The Liberal Democrats have sought at every stage of the Bill's passage to push the Government on two fronts. First, we want the Government to be more explicit about how their model of two in one—mayor and assembly in one authority—will work. Secondly, we have asked the Government to be more open about the final shape of London government. The Government should listen and let the people decide.
The Liberal Democrat position has been set out clearly: we oppose having a directly elected mayor. However, we have never sought to halt the passage of the Bill or to wreck it. We want to see a referendum accompanied by genuine debate about what form of government is right for the capital. We do not believe that power should be concentrated in the hands of one person: we prefer a cabinet model with an executive that is drawn from, and accountable to, the assembly.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman seems to be taking a little time to come to the point of the amendment. Does he support the view expressed by the hon. Member


for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 19 November? He said:
We are not arguing that it is possible to produce the Bill before we have the referendum".—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 383.]
Does the hon. Gentleman support the view expressed by Baroness Hamwee in another place? She suggested that the Bill
should be published at least six weeks before the date of the referendum".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 941.]
The hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to explain his position.

Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I hope that he will at least acknowledge that the subjects I am addressing are germane to the debate about London government—a characteristic that was lacking in other contributions. My remarks will address his question directly, and I shall turn to them in my own good time.
I was about to say that the Lords amendment before the House is one of two that were debated. One was moved by my colleague Baroness Hamwee and the other was moved by Lord Bowness. As a result of the laxity of Labour Whips in another place, the second amendment was passed. Baroness Hamwee's amendment was intended to probe the Government's willingness to be more open about their proposals and how they would work.
During the debate—I have read the transcript, as I am sure the Minister has—the Minister replying to the debate on the amendment moved by Baroness Hamwee offered an assurance that there would be time to debate the White Paper in both Houses before the referendum. On that basis, my colleague withdrew the amendment. That is a perfectly reasonable position to adopt in Committee in the other place. It often happens in Committee in this place. It is hardly the fault of Liberal Democrats here or in the other place that Labour Whips in the other place were unable to get their act together and put seven more Labour peers through the Lobby to defeat the Conservatives.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) did not press his amendment and was assured by the Minister that the White Paper would be published in the week beginning 23 March, which would have allowed six or seven weeks for public debate before the referendum. We wanted a little longer than that, but we decided that the additional two weeks for which we were campaigning was not a large enough issue to prevent us from supporting the Government and we did not press amendments.
Neither the offer of a debate nor the commitment to publish the White Paper six weeks before the referendum is as much as we would like. However, they are improvements and that is why we reject the Lords amendment and shall vote against it. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have sought to improve it and to encourage debate about the future governance of London. We are not trying to wreck the Bill. The Lords amendment would require the Government to publish the detailed Bill in advance of the referendum. That would have the consequences that Ministers have suggested, and that is why we do not support it.
The Government should practise what they preach. Some hon. Members seem to have been unable to obtain from the Vote Office the consultation paper that was issued on Monday by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is entitled "Modernising Local Government" and contains many fine words about the value and importance of consultation in shaping policy. When Labour embarked on its road to the manifesto process, its paper "A Voice for London" stated:
we aren't saying, 'This is it. Take it or leave it.' We have our ideas. But we recognise other people have good ideas too. It's really important that we get things right—that we come up with a London-wide authority that really works and really makes things better.
I agree, and that is why we want Londoners to be able to make an informed decision on 7 May. Electoral arrangements for the mayor and the assembly, which hon. Members have mentioned, their role and functions, where the GLA's powers will come from—will they be hoovered up from local government or drawn rather like teeth from Whitehall?—are important issues. In addition, we want to find out, and many people outside want to understand, how gridlock will be avoided.
Funding is an increasingly important issue. In an otherwise uncritical paper which was published by the Association of London Government last week, entitled "A Tale of Two Cities, the government of New York: Lessons for London", the authors Tony Travers and Gerry Stokes wrote—

Mr. McNulty: It is Stoker.

Mr. Burstow: I defer to the hon. Gentleman. That is the only occasion on which I will defer to him.
The authors of that document state:
The greatest doubts about the proposals for London remain around its fiscal and financial capacity. The Mayor of London will have much more than the Mayor of New York to look to higher levels of government for funding. The relationship between the Albany—capital of the state—and New York is not always comfortable. The proposed new arrangements for London may prove even more difficult for Whitehall given that the funding regime may give the Mayor little option but to look to central government for increased resources, backed by the votes of some 5 million Londoners.
Those are the words of independent assessors who generally support the Government's proposals. The disease that local government has at the moment—lack of financial independence—will afflict the GLA and without that independence everything else becomes secondary. That is why we say that London's budget must be for Londoners. The GLA must be as free as possible from interference.

Mr. McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burstow: The Blutack has been removed.

Mr. McNulty: Many thanks for deferring to me again. I do not mean to trouble you, but if you could possibly go back to your—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but will he please use the correct parliamentary language?

Mr. McNulty: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could get back to the amendment.
On 26 November, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said:
We support the idea that the referendum should be on 7 May next year, on the same day as the local elections, and we have voted for that."—[Official Report, 26 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 990.]
That is a perfectly reasonable position, but it does not bear comparison with the action of Liberal Democrats in the other place. If they had supported that position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is turning into a speech.

Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman should make his own speech rather than seeking to contribute by way of an intervention. His question to me was answered when I replied earlier to an intervention by the Minister. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that, perhaps he will take the opportunity to read and reflect on my speech in Hansard. If he does that, he will be happy to accept that I have dealt with the point and demonstrated that the debate in the other place on the amendment that was moved by my noble Friend the Baroness Hamwee enabled the issue to be discussed.
We secured an assurance from the Minister in the other place that there would be an opportunity for both Houses to debate the White Paper before the referendum. We sought that assurance, and when we received it we withdrew our amendment. It is hardly our fault if Labour Whips in the other place could not get their act together to deliver an additional seven votes to defeat the Conservatives. No amount of protest will dispose of that.

Mr. Hughes: I shall deal fully with the question by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). In support of my hon. Friend, I can offer a quotation from my noble Friend the Baroness Hamwee. It is at column 941 and she says—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to quote from speeches by anyone in the other House other than Ministers.

Mr. Hughes: In that case, I shall refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that my noble Friend made it absolutely clear that we did not wish to delay the referendum, but that the Government were seeking to provide a second-best solution. It is there in black and white, and it will completely reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Burstow: Labour Members can obtain copies of the Lords Hansard. The hon. Member for Harrow, East has a copy with him and he will know that my response to his intervention was correct.

Mr. McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burstow: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman just once more.

Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. My point was not about Baroness Hamwee's amendment but about the subsequent one. Logically, and in keeping with what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and

Bermondsey said in this place, you would have voted against that. I do not want to hear any silly little noises about us getting our act together. Your logical and reasonable position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman really must learn proper parliamentary language.

Mr. Burstow: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman expounding on that issue when he makes a speech later.
At the heart of the two amendments, one of which we shall not support, is the extent to which the Government are willing to be candid with the people of London about their detailed proposals. That is why we want the referendum in the form that is proposed by the Bill. We do not accept that a detailed Bill needs to be published, but we want to be sure that there is more than adequate time for the White Paper to be debated.
Progress so far on the debate about the GLA is rather like a candlelit dinner, at which there is a warm glow but not enough light for the diners to see what they are eating. Most Londoners feel positive about the proposal. They desire a new form of government for London but much unseen detail will prove harder for Londoners to swallow. Throughout the Bill's passage, Liberal Democrats have adopted a constructive approach. We have no doubt that London needs a strategic authority that is capable of leading the capital. The Government's aim should be to establish that new authority with as broad a base as possible. We think that that broad-based support is best achieved by an open debate about the precise form of government that Londoners—

Mr. Lansley: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's comments on the Liberal Democrat position. Am I right to think that you believe that it is impossible to publish the Bill before a referendum on 7 May but that your—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The remarks I made earlier to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) apply to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lansley: I am falling into error, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour not to do so again.
Am I right in thinking that the Liberal Democrats believe that it is impossible to have publication of the Bill before the 7 May referendum, but that they took the view in the other place that to have the White Paper and the Bill together would be preferable? If the referendum were to take place on a later date, that would be possible.

Mr. Burstow: If the referendum were to take place on a later date, that might prove possible, but we are committed to the idea that the referendum should take place on 7 May. Our position has been that the White Paper is enough. That is what we are proposing and it is what we supported when the Bill was considered in the House earlier. That is the position that we will stick to tonight.
We believe that the onus is on the Government to secure broad-based support. The best way to do that is through a full debate, not just in this place but in London as a whole. That is why the earlier the White Paper can


be published, the better. The opportunity for a debate on the White Paper before the referendum is vital. I hope that we will hear some words of assurance from the Minister that the House will have an opportunity to debate the White Paper before the referendum. That is crucial.
If we do not have that debate, the people of London will not be as well informed as they could be, and hon. Members will feel let down by the Government. They have made much of consultation, especially recently with the publication of their consultation document.
We will be supporting the Government in voting against the Lords amendment and we will be supporting the amendment that was passed in the other place in respect of the two-vote referendum. With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will talk about that later.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is ironic that the Minister, although not his hon. Friends, should decry the intervention of the House of Lords in seeking to amend the Bill. We are told that he does that in the cause of democracy. As I understand it, in this place democracy is served not simply by voting, but by debate followed by a vote. Now that the Bill has returned to this House and it is our responsibility to debate the amendments, the Minister—he presented his case—is unsupported in debate by any arguments from his hon. Friends. It is only democratic if, when we vote, we do so on the basis of a debate. A debate entails the presentation of arguments on both sides. I hope that I will be pleasantly surprised by the presentation of arguments in support of the Minister. If not, one will be forced to wonder whether such arguments exist.
We do not want to debate the merits or otherwise of the other place having an opportunity to amend the Bill. However, with this amendment they have asked us to look again at a particular issue. It is clear that some of the best arguments in favour of the amendment would stand up to good examination, which takes us beyond the consideration that took place in Committee. There is merit in thinking again in this House and responding positively to the way in which the Lords have amended the Bill.
Labour Members might wonder why a Member representing South Cambridgeshire should take such an interest in Greater London matters. They will know that I did so during our earlier consideration of the Bill. I do so because many of my constituents work in London.
Also, I believe that there is some precedent in the way in which we deal with these matters in London—in the establishment of a tier of regional government—and the way in which the Government might choose to dispose of the issues relating to regional government elsewhere in the country. I would be loth to allow the Government to proceed in a certain way in relation to London and then do the same in relation to other regions when we might discover that the consultative procedures were not as democratic or open as they might be.
Many people in my constituency attach great importance to the governance of London. They believe that the way in which our capital city is governed should be important to hon. Members throughout the country. The same is true—I will not prolong this thought—of the debates on Scotland and Wales. In those debates,

the participation of hon. Members from outside Scotland and Wales has been distinguished and important. It is the responsibility of all hon. Members to care about the constitution of this country. That is certainly true when we venture down the path of referendums.
The first best solution, which is not now available, would be to have a referendum only after the Bill has been debated in this place. The electorate of London would then be able to examine the Bill, as amended and debated in the House. We all know that amendments can be accepted during debates. I know from my experience on the Committee considering the National Minimum Wage Bill that amendments can be made. During the past week in that Committee, the Government found that the Bill was wrong-headed. They had to do a U-turn and amend it.
We seek another U-turn from the Government. They have done it before, and some of their U-turns have been embarrassing. It would not be a great embarrassment to the Minister if he were to change his mind. I suspect that he might secure some approval, not just in the House but in the media of London, if he were to say that there is an opportunity for publication of the Bill before the referendum. The media would think that a good thing.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) made clear, the purpose of the amendment is not to wreck the Bill. It is straightforward. It would mean one of two things. First, in pursuance of their intention to have a referendum on 7 May, the Government would have to publish the Bill in the week beginning 9 March—if my calculation is correct. I am sure that, when the Minister for Transport in London replies to the debate, she will say that it is impossible for Ministers to publish the Bill in that week. Although they may know all the details of the White Paper and be proceeding down the path towards publication, she will probably say that to translate those provisions into the detailed drafting necessary for the construction of legislation is too lengthy a process.
I understand that. I have been a member of a Bill team in a Government Department, and I remember the process by which one submits instructions to counsel, and the debate between officials and parliamentary counsel. However, the Minister should not take too much comfort from that thought, because it illustrates one of the most important points. The process of iteration between the Government, as they explain their intentions, and parliamentary counsel, as they try to implement those intentions, is precisely the point at which contradictions, difficulties, conflicts of interest, and questions about how those problems are to be legally resolved, are exposed.
Sometimes, in the exposure of those conflicts and questions, some of the most important aspects of drafting and of the subsequent legislation are uncovered. To proceed on the basis that the White Paper and statement of intentions are sufficient is palpably wrong. I imagine that, in time, as happens with constitution-making legislation generally, instructions to parliamentary counsel on the Bill's structure will expose exactly the questions and details that the White Paper has not dealt with.

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend has been helpful. He has been a member of a Bill team, which is an interesting


experience. Has he ever known a Bill to remain unchanged from the beginning of such a procedure to the end?

Mr. Lansley: In my personal experience, a Bill has never remained unchanged. It would be stretching a point to say that the principles of a Bill changed completely from those that were set out in the original instructions to counsel, but, in many of their details, Bills were changed.
Ministers have an advantage over us in that they have read the White Paper, but, when we read it and find out how many of the 61 questions it answers, we shall probably find out most of the principles that the Government wish subsequently to put into the legislation. However, most of the debate will take place not on those principles, but on their detailed application.
I leap ahead slightly to something that I was going to say later. For example, the resolution of conflict between the mayor and the assembly is precisely the issue on which legislation will have to be specific. We have made that point in other debates on the Bill. When we make a constitution, it is not sufficient to say, "People will work together in partnership." I am sure that the word "partnership" will appear regularly in the White Paper. It will be clear that the Government's intention is that the elected mayor will propose policies and nominations for appointments, and set out the way in which London's strategy is to proceed. It will say that that will be the subject of scrutiny by the assembly and, where the mayor and assembly disagree, that all will be resolved in a spirit of partnership.
Let us be clear: it does not always work like that. If it did, legislation and the constitution would probably be of little purpose. The purpose of the constitution, like the purpose of politics often, is to resolve conflicts. That is why we have Standing Orders and a structure to our debates. The same will be true in relation to the authority as represented by its two component parts: the mayor and the assembly. When they are in conflict, how will those conflicts be resolved? That will not be in the White Paper. I will gladly give way to the Minister if he can give me a categorical assurance that the White Paper will tell us the manner in which, in all circumstances, conflicts of principle, issue or interest between the mayor and assembly will be resolved. The White Paper will not do that. We will not find out how those conflicts will be resolved until we have the legislation.
The amendment could have one of two effects. One is that Ministers would have to publish the Bill before 7 May. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) told us that it was not possible to publish the Bill before 7 May. For the sake of argument, let us assume that he is right. What does that mean? It means—I hope that the Liberal Democrats will agree with us—that, for the Bill to be published before the referendum, that referendum has to take place at a later stage.
In an earlier debate, the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) were wrong. Both said that to hold the referendum after 7 May would delay the implementation of the policy. There is no reason why that should be true. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood

(Mr. Wilkinson) was clear about the matter. It is possible to publish the White Paper in March and the legislation in the summer, to have a referendum in September and to present the Bill to the House in November. There is no reason why the timetable for the implementation of the Government's manifesto commitment should not proceed to its finality as planned.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government explicitly accept that the referendum might have to be held on a date later than 7 May—as clause 1 specifically provides?

Mr. Lansley: I am delighted that my hon. Friend made that point, because I had planned on asking the Minister that very question. The Minister might like to intervene now or to reply later to that point. Why—except in contemplation of a date later than 7 May—does the Bill explicitly provide that a later date may be prescribed?
Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know only too well that Ministers will always take powers that they have no intention of exercising. Undoubtedly, that provision in clause 1 will be one of those instances. Although the provision is clearly stated in the Bill, hon. Members are being told not only that Ministers have no intention of holding the referendum on a later date but that the House should not even contemplate the possibility of doing so. If the Bill contains the provision, it is perfectly valid for the House to take advantage of it, and to pass an amendment making it clear that we contemplate circumstances in which that power will be used to hold the referendum at a later date.

Sir Paul Beresford: The Government's key excuse for not pursuing the course described by my hon. Friend is the need to save money. Those of us who lived in a London borough under the Greater London council will remember some terrible and horrendously expensive conflicts—primarily because of legal fees—between the GLC and the boroughs. My hon. Friend has already mentioned conflict between the mayor and the assembly, but there is an even greater likelihood of very expensive debate and conflict between the authority and lower levels of government. If the legislation were introduced so that it could be examined and debated before the referendum, there would be an opportunity not only for it to be straightened out but for the people of London to see the potential expense and themselves to send the Government back to rethink it.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which helpfully brings me to my next point. I shall not dwell on the point that he has made, because hon. Members from London constituencies, by reference to their own and neighbouring boroughs, may more readily be willing to do so.
The basic question is: why are Ministers resisting Lords amendment No. 1? One reason is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington said, they devoutly wish that the referendum should be held on the same day as local government elections. Consequently, Ministers would be able to obscure the record of Labour-controlled local authorities. They could present jam tomorrow—a strategic


vision and all will be well—for London, obscuring the absence of good value for money in Labour-controlled London local government. It is an old trick. If things do not work out today, make an even more grandiose promise for the future. That is how the Labour Government are approaching the referendum.
Ministers talk about the £2 million that would be lost by holding the referendum on a different day. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states that the referendum will cost £5 million if it is held on a day other than 7 May, and £3 million if it is held on 7 May.
I shall mention, for one last time in this debate, the Standing Committee considering the National Minimum Wage Bill—which has taken up a lot of my time, although we have learned a thing or two. Only yesterday, £2 million of public expenditure—for publicity on the minimum wage—was described as very little money. The Government recommended the sum of £2 million and said that it was nothing; the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) described it as a trivial sum.
Curiously, yesterday in Committee, £2 million was described as a trivial sum and was of no importance to Labour Members; today, it is a sum that we should not exceed in establishing sound democracy.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that £2 million spent in establishing a potentially enormously expensive body pales into insignificance compared with possible future sums.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not have to speculate about that. Ministers tell us that £2 million is to be saved. As we shall debate later, from Ministers' point of view, it is certain that, if there is to be an authority, it has to include an assembly.
The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill states that the cost involved in the establishment of the authority is £20 million, let alone any additional public expenditure that may be required subsequently. It would be interesting if Ministers told us what proportion of that £20 million was attributable to the cost of establishing the office of the mayor, as distinct from the cost of establishing the assembly.
Ministers will correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that the greater part of that £20 million will be attributable to the cost of establishing the assembly rather than the office of the mayor. If that is so, the electors of London might be on to a good thing by virtue of the amendment. It is not for me to judge, but if the electors of London were, by virtue of subsequent debates, able to choose not to have an assembly, although they had a mayor, and were to do so in the context of a referendum that took place at a later stage, because this amendment required that to happen, and if they saw the conflicts that might arise, and, instead of a directly elected assembly, had a nominated assembly from the boroughs that was better able appropriately to scrutinise the mayor and so on, it might be altogether cheaper than having a separately elected assembly. The greater part of the £20 million might thus be saved by the spending of an extra £2 million on the election itself.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I think that my hon. Friend is being sucked into the argument used by the Minister to defend

not having an election later than May because it would cost £2 million extra. Surely he knows that, in the consultation paper on local democracy, which we have not yet seen, but have read about in the newspapers, the Minister for Local Government and Housing is pressing to have elections not once every four years but every year. Page 15 of the Green Paper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The debate is going wide of the amendment.

Mr. Lansley: I freely acknowledge that the amendment would probably mean that the referendum would take place not on 7 May but later in the year at additional expense—but what price democracy? In other circumstances, which we are not debating now, Ministers would be willing to accept that the cost of democracy often rests on the need to pay for elections. There is nothing remarkable about that.
If it is resolved that it is necessary to consult the electorate of London, it is not unreasonable that we should first determine the most appropriate, legitimate and effective way to engage in that consultation, and then pay for it. It is wrong to say that we will first decide the cheapest way to consult the electors of London and do it that way, even though it might be less effective and less democratic. I am surprised that, so soon after taking office, Ministers should have pursued quite such a democracy-constraining approach—I put it no more strongly than that.
We need to emphasise the differences between a Bill and a White Paper. The implication of the Minister's opening remarks was, in effect, that all would be revealed in the White Paper and that we did not need to see the Bill because the difference was essentially a matter of legalism. I assume that the Minister thinks that, although the public are competent to read the White Paper—indeed, the Minister may assume that the great majority of people will read the summary of the White Paper that is to be delivered through their letter box—they are somehow not competent to read the Bill itself and extract something from it. None the less, we shall leave that on one side.
There is a big difference between a Bill and a White Paper. I shall give only one example, but it is an important one—the issue of electoral arrangements. I am sensitive to the issue, as one who was born and lived in "Essex" London. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) talks about "Kent" London and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) could tell us about "Middlesex" London. There is a deep sensitivity that goes to the heart of the Bill about the extent to which the authority, and particularly the assembly, will be able to represent the different parts of London. Hon. Members on both sides have acknowledged that London is not an homogenous entity, but a set of villages that come together to make one great city.
The electoral arrangements are key. If the electoral arrangements for the assembly do not take account of this issue, the voters in the referendum will ask whether there should be an elected assembly. We shall debate later whether they should have two questions. The fact that they should know the electoral arrangements hangs on the amendment. If the referendum is delayed—not the final Bill or its implementation, but the referendum—there will be scope for the Local Government Commission,


under part II of the Bill, to present its advice to the Government during the spring and early summer, in time for it to be reflected in the eventual Bill. That would make it an important basis on which judgments could be made in the referendum.
In the absence of such advice, the White Paper will not fulfil the Minister's intention of setting the issues out and ensuring that we all know what the system will look like.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that we could have the same problems as we had for Scotland? The White Paper for Scotland promised that enterprise would be a devolved issue. In the Bill, it turns out that it will be dealt with primarily by the Department of Trade and Industry. The White Paper for Scotland suggested that Scottish Ministers would be able to represent the United Kingdom in Europe, putting forward the Scottish viewpoint. The Bill says that they will merely assist Ministers in European representation, which is a far less strong provision. Does my hon. Friend agree that only when we see the Bill will we have chapter and verse?

Mr. Lansley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In the London context, the separation of powers and the relationship between superior and other bodies—between the boroughs, the assembly and the authority—will be very significant. To reiterate the point that I made when intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, no power will be more significant than that over transport policy, which is critical for those in London and those who live beyond the confines of Greater London.
Not until we see the White Paper on the integrated transport policy—I am sure that the Minister for Transport in London could tell us more about that—will we know the context in which the relative powers of the boroughs, the assembly and central Government, including the continuing role of the regional office of government, will be clearly delineated.
The White Paper, which is to be published in the week beginning 23 March, may well leave some questions unanswered on transport. The Government will tell us that we shall find out more when the White Paper on integrated transport is published. That will not arrive before 7 May. When the voters of London have to make their decision, questions will still be unanswered on the issue that may be central to their perception of what the mayor has to achieve. This is a question not just of powers, but of how those powers will be used. If Ministers can tell us that we will see all the details on transport policy for London in the White Paper in the week beginning 23 March, we would be very happy to hear it. However, I feel confident that Ministers will not be able to do so.
The amendment's effect could be positive; it is not a wrecking amendment. It is perfectly possible for the Government to achieve their intentions through a better procedure. Consultation with Londoners would be better, knowledge gained by the electorate before they take part in the referendum would be more complete, and the House would be better able to be advised by the referendum if we proceeded down the path predicated in the amendment.

9 pm

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I was unsure about whether I wanted to speak in this debate, but something that I heard earlier made me extremely angry and want to make a brief speech.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who has left the Chamber, no doubt to put himself out of his misery, said that democracy had been defrauded. Baroness Thatcher defrauded democracy when she abolished the Greater London council simply because she wanted to get rid of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge: No, I will not. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for long enough.
Baroness Thatcher did not of course succeed in getting rid—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady should listen to me. I should like her to speak to the amendment.

Dr. Tonge: I am going to speak to the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady please have a seat? It is not a matter of what she is going to do but of what she must do: speak to the amendment.

Dr. Tonge: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your instruction. I wish that you had been present earlier to instruct other hon. Members.
If Baroness Thatcher had consulted "Considerations on Representative Government" by John Stuart Mill, she would have read:
In a really equal democracy, every or any section will be represented not disproportionately, proportionately".
She could have dealt with the Greater London council had she introduced proportional representation.
The Government have promised us a White Paper, which is supported by all Government Departments. I have heard that said many times in the Chamber. We have also been told that an explanatory leaflet will be sent to every household. We even have some sort of proportional representation—although not the sort of which I would approve. Nevertheless, we are getting there.

Mr. Brooke: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge: No, I shall not give way.
Conservative Members insist on talking about a Bill as if it will save the nation. The general public are not interested in a Bill. They want Government ideas to be explained to them, and they want to get on with it.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge: No, I will not, because I am just about to finish my speech.
London is deteriorating while we all sit around arguing about how many angels one can fit on the head of a pin. It is time that we got on with it, had the referendum and restored proper government to London.

Mr. McNulty: Inadvertently, I have slipped up twice by referring to people other than your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as "you"—although not while you were in the Chair. I shall endeavour not to do so again.
It is interesting to follow a Liberal Democrat, because the point that I was trying to develop earlier concerned their quite illogical behaviour in another place. I fully accept the point about Baroness Hamwee. She tabled a little probing amendment to see whether, given the timetable that we were dealing with, it was possible to have the Bill published then. That is fine. She duly probed, and then withdrew. The fact that the Liberals did not then support the Government's position in getting the referendum for 7 May—something that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others have talked about ad nauseam in this place—defies belief.
That charge was not answered in any way, shape or form by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey or by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). The only logical position for the Liberals to take on the amendment in the upper House would have been to support the Government, given that they have said, rightly, that the referendum should take place on 7 May. I am pleased to hear that they will support the Government tonight in defeating the Lords amendment but, as ever with Liberal Democrats, that is probably too little, too late to reconcile themselves.
By way of a slight digression, I must tell the House that—I am pretty sure that I have the time and date right—I almost voted in the Division in which the Government were defeated in the House of Lords. I was near where the green carpet becomes red, and I could not find the place I was looking for; it was some Committee Room or other. I got stuck down a narrow little corridor, wondered why it was so narrow, and discovered that it was the Lords Lobby.
Then the bell went off, and some kindly employee of the upper House locked the door in front of me. I was panic-stricken, rushed to the other end and just got out of what I now know to be the Lobby in which the Opposition were voting. I think, but cannot swear to the fact, that that was the very occasion on which the Government were defeated.
My friends in the Whips Office have subsequently told me that rather than panicking, I should have stayed there. Had I done so, the entire vote would have been void and perhaps we would not be here discussing the Lords amendment now. We live and learn.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman could have been more discreet had he been there during the second vote when the Government were defeated. As he will be aware, some of his colleagues were with us on that occasion and he could have slipped through unnoticed. He would have been entirely welcome.

Mr. McNulty: That was an entirely unnecessary and nasty point, which introduces partisan politics into the House when we are trying not to be partisan. Dreadful.
I have listened to Opposition Members, and although we may joke about how touching it is to see people representing Dorset and Cambridgeshire taking an interest, I entirely accept that what happens to the governance of the capital city is a matter for all English Members of Parliament, if not for all United Kingdom Members. In saying that, I shall probably offend people from Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, so I apologise in advance, but the capital city of the United Kingdom is London. Yes, we can have fun with the idea of those Members contributing, but everyone can and should have his or her say.
I am astonished to hear about the mystical properties that are now attributed to a Bill, as though a Bill were entirely immutable and cast in stone—HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the gist of what Opposition Members have been saying. Apparently White Papers can be changed completely, willy-nilly, but Bills are cast in stone.
That is not the case. [Interruption.] With respect to the sedentary gestures by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), she has not been here for much of the debate.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I have been here for the whole debate, except the first three minutes, and I have heard almost every word of it. I should not have been making gestures from a sedentary position; I should have asked the hon. Gentleman to give way so that I could point out to him that the contrary of what he is saying is the case. A White Paper remains as it is published for ever more, but a Bill is a document that starts a process in the House whereby it is subject to scrutiny. As was said earlier this evening, almost no Bill has ever remained unchanged.

Mr. McNulty: That is a pretty way of putting it, but it entirely confirms my point, rather than the contrary. If the hon. Lady has been here after all, I apologise. I do not know how I could have missed her when she is dressed in such colours, but while I have been here, I do not remember seeing her. Perhaps that is because she has been sitting nice and quietly, unlike some of her colleagues.
We are committed to holding the referendum and to publishing the White Paper in March, as was said on Second and Third Reading. It is the responsibility of every single Member of Parliament and every party to ensure that, in those ensuing six weeks, there is the fullest and most detailed debate.
The principal Opposition party may well have some difficulty with pre-legislative referendums, and that is entirely fair and reasonable, but it should not try to hide with smoke and mirrors the fact that the amendment is essentially a wrecking amendment. Baroness Hamwee and others in the other place deserve an ever-so-slight slap on the wrist for not going through the Lobby when the amendment was made.
It was interesting and not, I suspect, atypical, that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is a north-west London colleague to whom I speak often, should have discerned a conspiracy to make the demise of the House of Lords a reality. He suggested that, somehow, we managed to leave my noble Friend Lord Hattersley at lunch and others busy in various places, and deliberately contrived to lose the vote, merely to reinforce our argument for reform of the upper Chamber.
Nothing could be further from the truth. To begin with, our argument is democratic and needs no strengthening. As and when the relevant legislation is passed, the Lords will have had their day. The point was completely irrelevant.
Another conspiracy theory was advanced, although I am afraid that I have forgotten who advanced it. It was suggested that the rush to hold the referendum on 7 May was intended to hide the disgraceful performance of London Labour councils.

Mr. John Randall: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for every Member of Parliament, in the six weeks between the publication of the White Paper and the date of the referendum, to explain that document fully to his electorate. Surely we shall not have time in that period to expose all the problems that we have in our respective boroughs with Labour councils. If we concentrate on the White Paper and the referendum, how will we be able to concentrate on the local elections?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We really must concentrate on the amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) will not respond to that intervention.

Mr. McNulty: Many thanks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was developing my point within the context of a point made specifically on the amendment, concerning whether the referendum should be held on 7 May or delayed to allow for the publication of a Bill. That is entirely within the terms of the amendment.
I say to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), and to every other hon. Member, that, if party organisations in London find themselves overtaxed by campaigning both on the Greater London assembly and mayor and on the borough elections, perhaps they should not be fighting either campaign in the first place. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is an even newer Member than I am—there are not many of whom that can be said—his argument is absolute nonsense.
Now that we finally have the Liberals on side—it was nice of them to make up their mind in the end—I hope that the amendment will be soundly defeated. It is a wrecking amendment: I fully accept Conservative Members' aversion—this year—to pre-legislative referendums, but they should not try to dress it up. We know why your colleagues in the upper House mistakenly won the vote, and we shall be doing them a great favour by defeating it tonight. Perhaps, in the spirit of getting your colleagues in the other place out of a deep hole—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that I do not have any colleagues in the other place.

Mr. McNulty: In the spirit, I should have said, of getting their colleagues in the other place out of the extremely deep and embarrassing hole into which they put themselves by winning the vote, I urge all Opposition Members to join us in the Lobby tonight. Then, perhaps, we can get on with what I think that we will all agree are more substantive amendments: Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3, on the two questions.
The amendment should be defeated. It is a nasty little wrecking amendment and its supporters should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Brooke: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on having spoken. Labour Members have been absent from this debate, as they were absent for most of the remaining stages of the Bill in November. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) referred to the various elements of London. I make it clear that I speak for London London.
On the morrow of the amendment that we are debating tonight, the Prime Minister—alluding to the hereditary peers' vote—said not once but twice that the House of Lords was seeking to stop people voting in the referendum "on 8 May". I stress 8 May, which, being the day after the day originally selected—and thus no longer the day of the local government elections—suggested that the Government were already on the way to conceding the amendment.
On 13 January in the Lords, the Minister for Roads referred to this as a wrecking amendment. The Minister in this House did the same this evening. The hon. Member for Harrow, East has just done the same. If this is a wrecking amendment, I have to say that the Bill is a very frail craft. I had an aunt once. The brother of somebody who worked for her went into the Navy. On inquiry, it turned out that he was serving in HMS Abominable. My aunt constructed an entire class of warships; HMS Intolerable, HMS Impossible, HMS Unspeakable. If this is a wrecking amendment, the Bill is patently HMS Insubstantial.
The Minister seemed to take mild offence that his Bill had been scathed during its passage. The great Claud Cockburn went to see his tutor at the end of his time at Oxford. His tutor said, "Up to now, Cockburn, your life has been punctuated by examinations, but from here on out you have a clear run through to the grave." I have to tell the Minister that Bills are subjected to examinations, and his has been. He will recall that, in the debate on the government of London last June, I referred to the great Sam Rayburn's remark that the three wisest words in the English language were "wait a minute". I said it in the context of the concept of a mayor, which my party subsequently espoused. I say in passing that I make no complaint about that.
The mayor is a continental and American model. For this country, our approach should be pragmatic and empiricist, against the philosophies which apply elsewhere. I am delighted to hear that the Government are supporting Lord Hunt's Bill, which is itself pragmatic and empiricist in terms of those experiments. The principle applies to the debate on the Bill before we finally pass it.
Local government goes back a long way in the history of my constituency. There have been Lord Mayors of London for at least eight centuries. The franchise was so generous in Westminster in the 18th century that, when the Reform Bill was passed in 1832, the electorate actually fell. I realise that new Labour regards these as the events of pre-history—happily defined once as a cross between Sir Rider Haggard's "She" and Sir Leonard Woolley's "Ur", but the past does illumine the future and it is highly important that we should so regard it.
I had no idea of the drama played out at the Lords Committee, described for us by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), but I have some familiarity with the way in which the Liberal Democrats vote. When I was a pairing Whip, they once voted for a Bill at Second Reading and against on Third Reading, which gave me some rather nasty moments. My right hon. Friend referred to indecision. Clearly, the events in the Lords were played out on the battlements of Elsinore, and it sounds as though this debate is being played out there, too.
I am familiar also with Governments being defeated in the Lords. I was the Whip on the Education (No. 2) Bill 1980—the first Lords defeat suffered by my noble friend Lady Thatcher's Administration. It was a remarkable event because Christopher Price—the then Labour Member for Lewisham, West—persuaded Rab Butler to lead the opposition to the Bill. He remained convinced throughout the episode, and thereafter, that Rab had throughout believed him to be a Conservative Member of Parliament.
On 13 January, the Government clearly had confidence that all was well. Only one person spoke on behalf of the Government and that was the Minister. Had anybody else been brought in, there would have been ample time to drum up the remaining seven votes by which the Government failed to win.
On the substance of the argument, in the Lords the Minister said
The requirement to publish a Bill before the referendum would mean unnecessary complication and delay.
People have waited far too long happily to tolerate further delay."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 944.]
The Government have not shown much previous evidence of hurrying in the context of this legislation. The Scottish and Welsh Bills made much faster progress. The Minister will recall the exchanges that he and I had about the clever chaps working away on the Bill, because we had not heard much about it before, but all that was evidence that time did not much matter to the Government in the early stages.
The Minister said in the House—I have not yet found the column reference, which is a discourtesy on my part—that the Bill was hugely popular with the people. In the Paviours Arms in my constituency, they talk of nothing else. The possibility of delay, even to the Prime Minister's chosen date of 8 May, excites them passionately.
I have never fully understood the Government's enthusiasm to run the risk of holding the referendum—here I am touching on the speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)—alongside the local government elections, and I am certain that the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield at the start of the debate are unfounded. It has always seemed to me unduly disrespectful to candidates in the local government elections in April to run a referendum debate in tandem—it certainly did not happen in the cases of the Scottish or Welsh Bills—especially given that the Government are anxious, as the other documents that they published this week made clear, to raise the profile of, and public confidence in, local government at large.
As for the £2 million to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire referred, I once asked Alan Lennox-Boyd, a little over 40 years ago, why he had

taken a particular decision on Cyprus two years later than necessary. He replied that two years was but a hiccup in history. I do not suggest for a moment that £2 million is a bagatelle, but the government of this great city has a weight and importance far greater than £2 million, and that should not be a decisive factor in determining the timetable if waiting a minute, to go back to Speaker Sam Rayburn, can produce a better and more thoughtful result.

Mr. Keith Darvill: There are many reasons for rejecting the amendment. Primarily, it is a delaying tactic. That is obviously the primary political reason for its having been supported and passed in the other place. It is therefore ironic that Conservative Members should use supposedly democratic grounds for supporting it in this House this evening.
The argument does not hold water. The views that Labour Members have advanced for some time for an assembly and a mayor have been well aired. They were aired in the run-up to the general election and at the election proper. They were aired in general terms in the Green Paper on the governance of London. In my borough of Havering, I joined my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) at a public meeting, which was well advertised locally, when our proposals were put to members of the public and discussed. The purpose of the meeting was also to encourage debate and contributions to the consultation process.
The debates in this House and in the other place have been well reported and debated throughout London in the run-up to the election in May. If hon. Members look in the Evening Standard and other newspapers, they will see that those issues are debated almost every day. The firm undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Minister to publish a White Paper setting out his proposals in full at least six weeks before the referendum is more than sufficient. Londoners will have all the information they require to reach an informed decision on 7 May.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said that it was inappropriate to use the same day for the referendum and the local elections. I put the opposite view. It is appropriate because, on that day, Londoners' attention will be focused on the division between the powers of the London boroughs and the distinct strategic functions that the Greater London assembly will have when it is set up. That is appropriate for the debate on local democracy, regionally and locally. Londoners want a strategic authority. They want a voice for London and democratic accountability. They want the Government to deliver our manifesto commitment of a referendum in May.
The amendment would inevitably mean delay because of the time it would take the parliamentary draftsman to prepare complicated multi-clause, multi-schedule legislation. Contrary to what Conservative Members have said, a White Paper would be more appropriate than a draft Bill, which would almost certainly require amendment through the legislative process. It follows that the amendment should be rejected.

Mrs. Laing: My constituents in Epping Forest are not residents of London, so I suppose that I am speaking for Essex London, as has been suggested. They are, however, much affected by what happens in London, because the


prosperity of my constituency depends greatly on the prosperity of the City of London, where many of them work. They are proud to be in Essex, but their concerns about London are my concerns. That is why I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in a discussion that so seriously affects London.
My constituents wonder what the proposed new tier of government will do for them. The Minister for Transport in London has been very patient in recent months in listening to my many pleas to her about the future of London Underground. I would not dream of doing that this evening, as it would be out of order. My constituents wonder how this great piece of legislation will in any way improve their lives. I am sure that the constituents of my hon. Friends feel the same, no matter what is discussed in the local hostelry of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).
The Government have a habit of breaking promises about referendums. We have had assurances from Ministers that the referendum on London would be taken after the Bill on the matter was published. I am sure that it is a complete coincidence, but I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Scotland has suddenly appeared on the Government Front Bench. It seems that, every time I speak, I make some point about Scotland and he is normally here. I am amazed that he is here when we are discussing London, when I am about to make a point about Scotland.

Mr. Ian Bruce: It may be that Ministers have asked him to explain to them why the referendums for Scotland and Wales had to be held on a different day from local election day but the London referendum must be held on the same day.

Mrs. Laing: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point; that may be so. I hoped that the Secretary of State for Scotland had appeared because he saw my name on the annunciator and thought that there must be something concerning Scotland going on in the Chamber.
The Prime Minister gave an undertaking last year that the referendums on Scotland and Wales would take place after Bills were published on the government of Scotland and Wales. Now we find another, similar U-turn. Ministers have said that the Bill will be published first and then later we discover—the Minister is shaking his head.

Mr. Raynsford: We have never given any such undertaking. The Government have always said emphatically that we would publish a White Paper before the referendum, but there was never any question that a Bill would be published before the referendum.

Mrs. Laing: I take the Minister's point, but it does not lessen the argument. To ask the voters to vote in a referendum on a matter of importance without the full facts of the matter before them is no less bad now in the case of London than it was in the case of Scotland and Wales.

Sir Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend has made a fair point. Those of us who have been in the House many

years know that it is rare that an Act of Parliament is exactly the same as the Bill first introduced into the House. It is even more rare that a White Paper is reflected in a Bill. The longer I am here, the more I think—to adapt an adage—that White Papers seem like bikinis: what they reveal may be interesting, but what they conceal is vital.

Mrs. Laing: I thank my hon. Friend for that brilliantly illustrated point. It is certainly true. [Interruption.] Labour Members disagree. My hon. Friend's point about bikinis is certainly true. They cannot possibly disagree with it. My hon. Friend's point about the difference between White Papers and Bills is also true.
On scrutinising the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill, we are discovering that there are differences between the implications of the White Paper and what the Bill says. I do not for one moment dispute the Government's right to make certain detailed changes between publishing a White Paper and publishing a Bill. The point is that the people are being asked to vote not on the Bill which will come before the House and the information contained in it, not on the points which will become law, but on the White Paper, which is merely an expression of intention.
We all know what is paved with good intentions. That is certainly what happened in the case of the Bills on Scotland and Wales before the referendums. It is exactly what is happening now.
What is wrong with giving the electorate more information on which to make up their minds how they will vote in a referendum? What are the Government trying to keep back? If one is trying to improve the democratic process and make democracy more relevant to people, is it not important to give them all the information they need before they exercise their democratic right to vote?
I note that Baroness Hayman said in another place that a Bill was a highly complex piece of legislation. She said that a Bill would be drafted in a highly technical style. Her implication was that what she called the ordinary voters of London would have a chance of understanding a White Paper, but that they would not understand a Bill. Well, I have news for the Government, many of the ordinary voters of London are lawyers, and they understand Bills.[Interruption.] Labour Members cannot possibly disagree with that assertion.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend's constituents and mine are perfectly capable of assessing the intricacies of technical Bills, but, even more importantly, the commentators, whose job it is to convey such things to the public, will be able to assess the intricacies of the Bill. They will be able to tell the public just where the Bill differs in key material effects from those good intentions to which my hon. Friend referred which are contained in the White Paper.

Mrs. Laing: I thank my hon. Friend for so eloquently making the point that I was about to make.

Mr. Howarth: I am sorry.

Mrs. Laing: No, there is no need for an apology: my hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

Sir Paul Beresford: There is a third group to consider, to which I referred in an earlier intervention. All those


standing at the borough council elections, which will be held at the same time, will generally have received advice on the Bill, if it is published by then, and will understand it with the assistance of the lawyers who are provided by local authorities. They will be deeply concerned, because they will be directly affected by the new authority.

Mrs. Laing: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Such points all add to the argument that can only lead to us assume that there is something that the Government have to hide from the potential voters of London. If they have nothing to hide, why do they not simple publish the Bill?
We all know how long it takes to put a Bill together—my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) explained it eloquently. If the Secretary of State for Scotland can put together his extremely complex Scotland Bill in a short time, why cannot the Government also publish the relevant Bill for the proposed London authority? They could have done so in a shorter time than it took to publish the Scotland Bill, because it is bound to be shorter and less complex than that legislation.
Also at stake is the very principle of having a referendum in the first place. I believe that a pre-legislative referendum is even more dangerous than a post-legislative referendum, because the former goes even further in negating the responsibility of Parliament. In fact, it represents a further negation of the sovereignty of this place.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): That is the first time we have heard that.

Mrs. Laing: I am surprised to learn that I have made any point that has not been made before, given that this has been a long debate tonight.
I accept that, very occasionally, there is a case for having a referendum as part of our legislative process on a point of huge constitutional importance, but I submit that this is not such an occasion. It merely shows that the Government do not have the courage of their convictions. They want to have a referendum without giving the people who are to vote all the information that they need to make an informed choice about how to vote because, as we have seen so often with this new Government, they are more concerned—almost entirely concerned—with the public relations aspects of their actions and with their image. They have hardly dared to take a step without consulting the focus groups and opinion polls. Now we find that, again and again, they cannot act without consulting through a referendum of some kind. However, it is not a valuable referendum; it will not give people a true choice, because they will not have the information on which to make that true choice.
We have heard very little about who will vote in the referendum, with or without the information that they would have if there were a Bill before them. My constituents will not have the chance to vote, and neither will constituents of most hon. Members in the Chamber who live in other parts of the United Kingdom. The boundaries will be narrow, yet people who are not citizens of the United Kingdom will have an opportunity to vote, because, in London, many people who are householders and have the chance to vote in London local elections are not even citizens of the United Kingdom.
Once again, as they did with Scotland and Wales, the Government are taking a step that affects not a narrow part of our society, not a small number of people in the

United Kingdom. They are taking a step which, because it affects our great capital city, affects everyone in the United Kingdom; yet the only people who will have a chance to vote are those who have a right to vote in London. It is not fair. It is the wrong way to conduct business. The referendum—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is it not the case that, if the referendum is held on 7 May, nothing can happen until the legislation has passed through the House? So the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) completely misled the House in suggesting that, if the referendum were not held on 7 May, the whole process would be delayed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the process of delay lies in the hands of the Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry; I was distracted for a moment. I thought that the hon. Gentleman mentioned someone misleading the House. No one would do that. Would that be the case?

Mr. Howarth: I am so sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that she inadvertently may have misled the House, but—

Dr. Tonge: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get this settled. The hon. Gentleman should just withdraw that remark. It tidies things up.

Mr. Howarth: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do withdraw the imputation. I just think she was wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Now that we have got that out of the way, we have had an intervention, so the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) should speak.

Mrs. Laing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to conclude. I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has once again so eloquently made. Because the basis of the referendum is so weak, its result will hardly be worth paying attention to. It is not fair to ask people to go to the polls and take a decision when they do not have the full facts. The referendum will not bring increased democracy to people; it will be an abuse of the democratic process because it distorts that democratic process for the sake of the image of the present Government.

Mr. Ottaway: We have had an especially interesting debate tonight. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who has graced us—honoured us—with his presence, has looked in, and smirks at the suggestion.
It has been suggested by a number of Labour Members, mainly in interventions, and by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) in a speech, that Lords amendment No. 1 is a wrecking amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, if it is a wrecking amendment, it is a very insubstantial one. The definition of a wrecking amendment is an amendment that would make the Bill ineffective if it were accepted. This amendment does not make the Bill ineffective; it merely adds a little bit of democracy to the process. It is spurious to claim that it is a wrecking amendment.
We are addressing the principle of open government. We are not asking the Government to do anything extraordinary or unusual or anything that would cause them embarrassment—although I suppose that passing the amendment might have that effect. We are asking the Government to be fair to the people of London. Our request is not unreasonable: we are seeking clarity so that the people may exercise their judgment in a manner consistent with open government—something that Labour Members lecture us is a matter of principle.
9.45 pm
If the Bill is passed unamended, we shall be seeking the approval of the people of Greater London for a Government proposal that has little form or substance. They will be invited to vote for an idea, not a proposal. It is highly unsatisfactory to seek the views of the public in a referendum without offering the details of what is proposed. There is a case—although it is not covered by the amendment—for arguing that the Bill should be enacted before the referendum is held so that the people of London may see beforehand what the House has decided.
If a Member of Parliament were to walk into a car showroom to buy the latest model and the salesman said, "I'm sorry, we don't have a car in stock, but here is a glossy brochure that gives a detailed description of the car," he would be right to be wary. The interpretation of the wording, the photography and the presentation of the document reflect the perspective of those who want to sell the goods. Wise people would want to see the car before they bought it. They would want to view it from their own perspective; they would not want to be bamboozled by glitz and media presentation.
That is the nub of the argument tonight. The Government claim that Londoners need to see only a White Paper—the equivalent of the car showroom brochure—before making up their minds in a referendum. The Government cannot promise what final version of events will appear in the Bill. Nevertheless, they ask us to trust them.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Would my hon. Friend be prepared to buy such a car on the basis of the prospectus if he were dealing with a reputable dealer? In this case, the dealer is thoroughly disreputable.

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend makes my point for me. I would certainly buy a used car from him, but I cannot say the same for some Labour Members.
The Government claim that there are no devils in the detail. However, their argument is flawed. The Government have said repeatedly that they will play a neutral role in the referendum campaign. As they produced the policy, the Government are incapable of being neutral. That is understandable. The Government want everybody to say yes, and they will produce only publicity and material that sets out the positive side and the benefits of their arguments. It is only logical, and the temptation to do that will be irresistible.
In the latter part of last year, the London desk in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions produced a document about the London

referendum publicity campaign. That campaign will have a pretty glitzy run—what is more, the taxpayers will pay for it all. The document says that, before March 1998, we shall see the logo for the London vote. An internet site and a helpline will then be established. Stands will be set up in shopping centres and then, glory be, there will be a referendum bus. All of that will happen before the White Paper is published, let alone any other details. Lord only knows what Government supporters will say as they trundle around.
Following the launch on 23 March, we shall have the White Paper and a White Paper leaflet. Most revealing of all is the advertising to back up the White Paper. This is the first that the House has heard about an advertising campaign. In Committee, the Minister said that a leaflet would be published. He continued:
We will also ensure that every household in London receives a neutral and factual summary of the White Paper, setting out the proposals on which they will be asked to vote, as well as other initiatives, to ensure that everyone knows what the issues are … There will be no public funding for either a yes campaign or a no campaign."—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c.378–9.]
That flies in the face of the memo.
The Minister shakes his head. Page 3 of the memo states:
We are currently in the process of appointing an advertising agency.
That was in December. The memo continues:
The campaign will have a value of about £750k over the two financial years.
The most revealing part is what follows:
This spend is part of the total cost of the referendum of no more than £3m.
There we have it, and it is getting perilously close to dubious practice. There was no mention of this matter when the Bill went through this House. Every impression was given that the £3 million that was covered by the financial effects of the Bill was the cost of running a referendum, and it was said that, if it was not held on 7 May, it would cost £5 million. Now we discover that £750,000 of that £3 million is to be spent on an advertising campaign. The Minister has said that the extra £2 million for delaying the referendum could not be afforded, but £750,000 is going on an advertising campaign which is effectively a state-funded yes campaign.

Mr. Raynsford: I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his last remark. The Government have made it quite clear that we have a responsibility to make available factual and neutral information about the White Paper and the referendum. There is no question of any Government money for a yes campaign, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his scurrilous allegation.

Mr. Ottaway: If there were to be a neutral campaign, the Minister would stick to the words that he used in Committee on 19 November, when he said that there would be a single leaflet. A £750,000 advertising campaign does not draw attention to but backs up the White Paper. It is impossible for that to be a neutral campaign. It seems to be a flagrant breach of the Minister's undertaking that no public funds will be used, because such funds are clearly being used. They are being


provided under the terms of the Bill and the money is being spent without any hon. Member being aware of the proposal until now.
This is a disclosure of a massive state-funded yes campaign. There is no kidding: the campaign will focus on improving the turnout. It supports the Government's proposals and it is the nearest that there can be to a state-managed hijack of public funds.

Mr. Raynsford: Two minutes ago I repeated a clear undertaking that there would be no public money to support a yes campaign and I asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his scurrilous allegation that there would be one. He did not do that and he has exacerbated the problem by repeating his allegation. That is a gross discourtesy to the House and shows the scurrilous way in which the hon. Gentleman is operating. He is failing to withdraw when he has been revealed as peddling untruths.

Mr. Ottaway: The first time that the House knew that £750,000 was to be spent on an advertising campaign in support of the Government's proposals was when I revealed it this evening. The Minister may say that he said "other measures" in Committee. He was covering up a blatant abuse concerning the use of public funding.

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend makes a most important point that has transformed the debate. Lam sure it has been a revelation to Londoners and the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could easily have obviated this expenditure by doing the honest thing and publishing the Bill, which contains the genuine proposals? That would be better than having to produce blurb to try to put flesh on the skeleton proposals in the White Paper.

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are urging the House to support the Lord's amendment.
The Government say that their publicity campaign is to be neutral and that it will focus on ensuring that people are aware of the Government's proposals and of their right to vote on them. That is not the point. The point is that this is their gloss on the Government's proposals. The Government are saying that the proposals are a good thing and the money is supporting their argument that they are a good thing. In truth, one cannot write a proposal and put it forward in a neutral way. There we have it. The Government are spending £750,000 on an advertising campaign in support of the glossy brochures—there is no chance to look at the car one is buying.
It is just such an approach that leads us to believe that, in the interests of fairness, justice and democracy, the detailed proposals for London set out in the Bill should be made available to the Government.
The most spurious argument of all is that of delay. The Government may say that to publish the Bill—

Mr. Ian Bruce: Only recently we have seen the narrow vote on the Welsh assembly, which took place on the basis of a White Paper and is now being seen as spurious. The assembly will not be in Cardiff where it was supposed to be. Surely we want to see what is really going to happen, not what the gloss is.

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend illustrates the fact that the devil is in the detail. We want to see the detail before we ask Londoners to vote on the matter.
As I have said, the most spurious argument of all is that of delay. The Government may say that to publish the Bill will delay the referendum. That is only part of the case. The only consequence of publishing the Bill in advance of the referendum is that the referendum will not be held on the same day as the London borough elections.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said during her excellent speech, the Scotland Bill had its First Reading five months after the publication of the White Paper. For Wales, the interval was four and a half months. With the publication of the London White Paper on 23 March, a draft Bill could, under the same time scale as for Scotland—the longer of the two intervals—be published in mid-August 1998 with a referendum in October. If the referendum resulted in a yes for the Government's proposals, the Bill would feature in the Queen's speech in November. There is no difficulty in that proposal. There is no reason why it cannot be delivered, and the Government must recognise that that is the fairer way of doing things.
In Scotland and Wales there may arguably have been a case for saying that there was no time. That excuse is not available in London. However, reasonableness and fairness do not come into the making of this decision. The only argument that the Minister is left with is that it will cost £2 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said in his excellent speech, that is peanuts. In terms of the departmental budget, it adds up to 30 minutes expenditure over a year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, that is a small price to pay for the long-term interests of democracy in London.
We all know that the reason for the referendum on 7 May—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam)—is to obscure the appalling record of Labour councils that are up for re-election in the London borough elections on the same day. So ghastly has been Labour's track record over the years, and so appalling has been its performance in London, that the Government want to cover it up.
We have only to look at the disgrace of the schools in Hackney, the broken pledges to Edgware general hospital, the building on green-field sites across London and the waste, inefficiency and incompetence of Labour councils from one side of the capital to the other. In a futile attempt to cover that up, the Government have gone for the ultimate smokescreen—a referendum on the same day. They did not do it in Scotland or in Wales, and they do not have to do it in London. We say that in these matters the devil is in the detail. It is in the fine print that the real answers to the many questions can be found. On past evidence, we are right to ask for the details to be spelled out.
In a letter to the editor of The Times in October, the Minister for London and Construction said that he did not support the idea of a borough leader representing a geographical part of London, who
would see his or her first loyalty as fighting for his or her own patch rather than the wider interests of London as a whole.
There it is: a clear, unequivocal statement setting out his position as a matter of principle. Anyone who read The Times would be clear what that meant. They would say, "This guy is thinking strategically. Very interesting. I must judge him on that proposal." Just imagine how


that person will feel when he discovers that, in truth, the Minister has already abandoned that principle, that he is now considering an electoral system where members are elected by geographical constituency—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Ottaway: I was drawing attention to the Minister's letter to the editor of The Times.

Mr. Raynsford: Wind up.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister says, "Wind up." I am afraid to say that he has much to hear yet, which he is not going to like.
Just imagine how the person reading the Minister's letter to The Times.will feel when he discovers that, in truth, the Minister has already abandoned that principle and that he is now considering an electoral system whereby members are elected by geographical constituency, with a top-up list, as we have in Scotland. I know what that person would say: "I am appalled. I have been misled. How can I trust this man?" That is what is happening.
That is why we want all the details of the measure spelt out before Londoners make a judgment. It is no good trusting Ministers: they change their minds about everything.
Before the election, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to extend the scope of personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts. After the election, he announced that they would be abolished. Labour said that it would introduce cold weather payments. The Minister with responsibility for pensions has rejected that.

Mr. McNulty: What does that have to do with the amendment?

Mr. Ottaway: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. It demonstrates that people cannot trust any pledge made by a Labour Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must keep strictly to the Lords amendment. We are going a bit wide.

Mr. Ottaway: I shall keep to London matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the election, the Minister for Transport in London campaigned on behalf of members of the National Bus Company employees pension scheme, who felt that, on privatisation of the buses—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Lords amendment clearly talks about the government of London and the

question of a referendum, so the hon. Gentleman must speak about the referendum. There are many wide issues that he can go into, but not tonight.

Mr. Ottaway: I do not seek to quarrel with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this concerns the credibility of Ministers, who are inviting us to accept a pledge that they will not change the details of the White Paper before the Bill is published. We have heard from other hon. Members how the Government have changed their White Paper proposals on Scotland and on Wales. I am illustrating matters affecting the Minister for Transport in London, which go on in London in the transport sphere, which will be a part of the Greater London authority, and which will feature in the White Paper. I am showing how Ministers change their mind from one day to the next. That is the point that I seek to demonstrate. May I continue on that basis?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman can say to the House is that the Minister for Transport in London has changed her mind. He has said that, so we can return to the amendment.

Mr. Ottaway: But I have not told the House how the Minister has changed her mind.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that this should be his concern and that of the House? The Scotland White Paper pledged, for example, that enterprise would be a devolved issue; in fact, it will still be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry. Similarly, the Scottish White Paper said European representation would be a matter for Scottish Ministers, who would be able to go to Brussels and argue the case for the United Kingdom and Scotland; in fact, that is not offered in the Bill. It has to be a question of what is actually in the Bill.

Mr. Ottaway: I sense that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are getting a bit edgy. Perhaps I will find time on another occasion to deal with the pledges to the employees of the National Bus Company broken by the Minister for Transport in London.

Mr. Lansley: Unless we make Lords amendment No. 1, we will not see the integrated transport White Paper before the referendum.

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend makes exactly the point that I was trying to make.
A matter that certainly will be dealt with by the Greater London authority is health in London. In the general election campaign, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) issued a leaflet saying:
You Can Still Save Edgware General If You Vote Labour on May 1st".
Labour Members will probably recognise the leaflet and the photograph of the current Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who was then the shadow Secretary of State for Health.
The leaflet continues:
The handshake which brings hope for the future of Edgware General Hospital.


Under that, it says:
Barry"—
who I presume is Barry Gardiner, although we do not see him around much; I do not know whether he was elected—
is determined to restore the accident and emergency department at Edgware with Chris's help.
But the honeymoon did not last very long.
Only three weeks later, the Barnet Advertiser—the free newspaper of the year—issued a special edition, with the headline "The Great Betrayal" of the Labour party. It continues:
Labour win votes by pledging to review A and E closure, then do an immediate U-turn and consign Edgware General to history".
The article states:
Three weeks ago Labour captured two of Barnet's Parliamentary seats on the back of a cast-iron"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Lords amendment. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to speak to that amendment.

Mr. Ottaway: May I just say that the quote ends:
This week it became clear that those words were not worth the paper they were written on"?
That is exactly how the Opposition feel about the Labour party's undertaking—

Mr. Graham Allen: (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 105.

Division No. 164]
[10.7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Buck, Ms Karen


Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard


Allan, Richard
Burgon, Colin


Allen, Graham
Burnett, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Burstow, Paul


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Byers, Stephen


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cable, Dr Vincent


Atkins, Charlotte
Caborn, Richard


Austin, John
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Baker, Norman
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bayley, Hugh
Canavan, Dennis


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Caplin, Ivor


Begg, Miss Anne
Casale, Roger


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Caton, Martin


Bennett, Andrew F
Cawsey, Ian


Benton, Joe
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Chaytor, David


Berry, Roger
Chidgey, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Chisholm, Malcolm


Blizzard, Bob
Clapham, Michael


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clark, Dr Lynda


Borrow, David
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bradshaw, Ben
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)



Brand, Dr Peter
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Breed, Colin
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Clelland, David


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Clwyd, Ann





Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cohen, Harry
Hepburn, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Heppell, John


Colman, Tony
Hesford, Stephen


Connarty, Michael
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith


Cooper, Yvette
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cotter, Brian
Hoon, Geoffrey


Crausby, David
Hope, Phil


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Dr Kim


Darvill, Keith
Hoyle, Lindsay


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davidson, Ian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hutton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Ingram, Adam


Dawson, Hilton
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jamieson, David


Dismore, Andrew
Jenkins, Brian


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Donohoe, Brian H
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Doran, Frank
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Drew, David
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Ms Jenny


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ennis, Jeff
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Etherington, Bill
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fearn, Ronnie
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keetch, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Kemp, Fraser


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Flynn, Paul
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Galloway, George
Kingham, Ms Tess


Gapes, Mike
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gardiner, Barry
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Laxton, Bob


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lepper, David


Gerrard, Neil
Leslie, Christopher


Godsiff, Roger
Levitt, Tom


Goggins, Paul
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Linton, Martin


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Livsey, Richard


Gorrie, Donald
Lock, David


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Love, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McAllion, John


Grogan, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Gunnell, John
McCabe, Steve


Hain, Peter
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Macdonald, Calum


Hancock, Mike
McFall, John


Hanson, David
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Harris, Dr Evan
McIsaac, Shona


Harvey, Nick
Mackinlay, Andrew


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McLeish, Henry


Healey, John
McNulty, Tony


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mactaggart, Fiona






McWilliam, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxton, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moffatt, Laura
Steinberg, Gerry


Moore, Michael
Stevenson, George


Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliot
Stringer, Graham



Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mountford, Kali
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mudie, George
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Mullin, Chris
(Dewsbury)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Norris, Dan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Hara, Eddie
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Öpik, Lembit



Organ, Mrs Diana
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Touhig, Don


Palmer, Dr Nick
Trickett, Jon


Pearson, Ian
Truswell, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pike, Peter L
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Plaskitt, James
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pollard, Kerry
Tyler, Paul


Pond, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen
Vis, Dr Rudi


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wallace, James


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Webb, Steve


Primarolo, Dawn
White, Brian


Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wicks, Malcolm


Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rammell, Bill
(Swansea W)


Rapson, Syd
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rendel, David
Willis, Phil


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wills, Michael


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Wilson, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roy, Frank
Wood, Mike


Ruane, Chris
Woolas, Phil


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Worthington, Tony


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wray, James


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Salter, Martin
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sanders, Adrian
Wyatt, Derek


Savidge, Malcolm



Sawford, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts.


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Amess, David
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Arbuthnot, James
Lansley, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Leigh, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Letwin, Oliver


Beggs, Roy
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bercow, John
Loughton, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Luff, Peter


Blunt, Crispin
McLoughlin, Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Madel, Sir David


Boswell, Tim
Major, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Malins, Humfrey


Brazier, Julian
May, Mrs Theresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Moss, Malcolm


Browning, Mrs Angela
Nicholls, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Norman, Archie


Cash, William
Ottaway, Richard


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Page, Richard


(Chipping Barnet)
Paterson, Owen


Chope, Christopher
Prior, David


Clappison, James
Randall, John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Robathan, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Collins, Tim
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Ruffley, David


Cran, James
St Aubyn, Nick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Shepherd, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Evans, Nigel
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Faber, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fabricant, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Fallon, Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Syms, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gale, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Garnier, Edward
Townend, John


Gill, Christopher
Tredinnick, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Tyrie, Andrew


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Viggers, Peter


Gray, James
Walter, Robert


Green, Damian
Wardle, Charles


Greenway, John
Wells, Bowen


Grieve, Dominic
Whittingdale, John


Hammond, Philip
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Hawkins, Nick
Wilkinson, John


Hayes, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Heald, Oliver
Yeo, Tim


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Horam, John



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Nigel Waterson.


Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Question accordingly agreed to

Question put accordingly, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 346, Noes 103.

Division No. 165]
[10.21 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Austin, John


Ainger, Nick
Baker, Norman


Allan, Richard
Ballard, Mrs Jackie


Allen, Graham
Barnes, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)



Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Barron, Kevin


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bayley, Hugh


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Atkins, Charlotte
Begg, Miss Anne








Bennett, Andrew F
Drew, David


Benton, Joe
Drown, Ms Julia


Bermingham, Gerald
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Berry, Roger
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Efford, Clive


Blizzard, Bob
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Ennis, Jeff


Borrow, David

Etherington, Bill


Bradshaw, Ben
Fearn, Ronnie


Brand, Dr Peter
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Breed, Colin
Fisher, Mark


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flynn, Paul


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burden, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burnett, John
Galloway, George


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gapes, Mike


Byers, Stephen
Gardiner, Barry


Cable, Dr Vincent
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbelt-Savours, Dale
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Canavan, Dennis
Gorrie, Donald


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caton, Martin
Grogan, John


Cawsey, Ian
Gunnell, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hain, Peter


Chaytor, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chidgey, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clapham, Michael
Hancock, Mike


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hanson, David


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Healey, John


Clelland, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Coleman, Iain
Hesford, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cooper, Yvette
Hoey, Kate


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cotter, Brian
Hope, Phil


Crausby, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr Kim


Dalyell, Tam
Hoyle, Lindsay


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Davidson, Ian
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hutton, John


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Ingram, Adam


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dawson, Hilton
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jamieson, David


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jenkins, Brian


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Donohoe, Brian H
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)





Jones, Ms Jenny
O'Hara, Eddie


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pearson, Ian


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pike, Peter L


Keetch, Paul
Plaskitt, James


Kemp, Fraser
Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Pond, Chris


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pope, Greg


Khabra, Piara S
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Powell, Sir Raymond


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Primarolo, Dawn


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prosser, Gwyn


Laxton, Bob
Purchase, Ken


Lepper, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Leslie, Christopher
Quinn, Lawrie


Levitt, Tom
Rammell, Bill


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rapson, Syd


Linton, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Livsey, Richard
Rendel, David


Lock, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Love, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCabe, Steve
Rowlands, Ted


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roy, Frank


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Ruane, Chris


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McFall, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ryan, Ms Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Salter, Martin


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sanders, Adrian


McLeish, Henry
Savidge, Malcolm


McNamara, Kevin
Sawford, Phil


McNulty, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michael, Alun
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin
Stevenson, George


Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moore, Michael
Stott, Roger


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stringer, Graham


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann



Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
(Dewsbury)


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mudie, George
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Timms, Stephen


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Tipping, Paddy


Norris, Dan
Tonge, Dr Jenny


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Touhig, Don






Trickett, Jon
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Truswell, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Willis, Phil


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wills, Michael


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wilson, Brian


Tyler, Paul
Winnick, David


Vaz, Keith
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wood, Mike


Wallace, James
Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony


Wareing, Robert N
Wray, James


Watts, David
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Webb, Steve
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


White, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Whitehead, Dr Alan



Wicks, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Cllve Betts.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Amess, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lansley, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Leigh, Edward


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Letwin, Oliver


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Beggs, Roy
Loughton, Tim


Bercow, John
Luff, Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
McLoughlin, Patrick


Blunt, Crispin
Madel, Sir David


Body, Sir Richard
Major, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Brazier, Julian
May, Mrs Theresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Moss, Malcolm


Browning, Mrs Angela
Nicholls, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Norman, Archie


Cash, William
Ottaway, Richard


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Page, Richard


(Chipping Barnet)
Paterson, Owen


Chope, Christopher
Prior, David


Clappison, James
Randall, John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Robathan, Andrew


Collins, Tim
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Cran, James
Ruffley, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
St Aubyn, Nick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Duncan Smith, Iain
Shepherd, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Evans, Nigel
Soames, Nicholas


Faber, David
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fabricant, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fallon, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Swayne, Desmond


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Syms, Robert


Gale, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Garnier, Edward
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gill, Christopher
Townend, John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Tredinnick, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Tyrie, Andrew


Gray, James
Viggers, Peter


Green, Damian
Walter, Robert


Greenway, John
Wardle, Charles


Grieve, Dominic
Wells, Bowen


Hammond, Philip
Whittingdale, John


Hawkins, Nick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Hayes, John
Wilkinson, John


Heald, Oliver
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Yeo, Tim


Horam, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Nigel Waterson.


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Question accordingly agreed to

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 11, leave out ("question") and insert ("questions").

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 3, and the Government motion to disagree thereto.

Mr. Raynsford: When the Bill was last debated, I said that the Government were pragmatic about the two questions; unlike the Opposition, we would be prepared to listen. Indeed, I invited the Opposition to come up with a viable second question. However, I specified some essential tests that any second question would have to pass.
First, if we are to have a second question on the grounds that it extends democratic choice, it needs to do just that. It needs to accommodate the various permutations and preferences raised during our debates. The amendment made in another place patently fails to do that. Rather than clarifying the choices, it opens up a series of ambiguities. The electorate will not know what they are voting for.
How does the staunch Tory who wishes to vote specifically for his party's preferred option—an assembly made up of borough leaders—do so when faced with the two questions? He cannot. He can only vote for an assembly without knowing how it might be constituted. This is from the party that argued throughout the previous debate that clarity was essential—that people should be aware of every fine detail of the arrangements. Of course when it comes to this Lords amendment, the Conservatives use totally different logic.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: Oh dear, the hon. Gentleman is once again going to bore us.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister, who thinks that he will be bored. The Government have produced the Green Paper and the consultation paper, and if the amendment is passed the referendum will not take place. We do not know, however, what the Government will propose in the White Paper. How can we ask detailed questions when we do not even know what the Government propose?

Mr. Raynsford: It is a little depressing to realise that the hon. Gentleman—who was in the Chamber for most, if not all, of the debate on the previous amendment—obviously has not listened to a single word. We have made it clear that the Government will publish a White Paper, setting out the full details of the Government's decisions in respect of the Greater London authority, and that will be at least six weeks before the referendum. In addition, a summary leaflet will be distributed to every household in London. I accept that the hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency somewhere in the west


country, will not get a copy through his postbox because he does not happen to live in London—except during the week.

Mr. Bruce: I have an address in London.

Mr. Raynsford: Well, I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets one through his postbox. He will then see the basis of the Government's proposals.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No, I wish to make progress. The hon. Gentleman has intervened on many occasions but has cast little light on the debate. We should proceed.
Equally, how does the earnest Liberal Democrat express her preference for a mayor elected from the assembly? She cannot. She can only vote for or against a mayor, without knowing how the mayor will be elected. Again, that is clear evidence that the Opposition have failed to come up with a second question that clarifies the issues.

Mr. Simon Hughes: indicated dissent.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he would want a Liberal Democrat to have the opportunity to vote for an assembly without a mayor. That cannot be done on the formulation he proposed. That reveals the total failure of the Opposition to come up with a viable second question.

Mr. Hughes: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall deal with this point at greater length later.
The Minister's argument is flawed in two respects. First, the Bill, as amended by our amendment, specifically says that the Government propose one question, "Do you want an elected assembly, elected by Londoners?" and another, "Do you want an elected mayor, elected by Londoners?" Secondly, the Minister knows that his one-question proposition does not allow somebody who wants only a mayor or only an assembly to express that view either. The argument that he applies to us applies equally to him.

Mr. Raynsford: I accept that. I have never pretended that we have a duty to put before the electorate the Liberal Democrats' basically unsound proposals. We are not obliged to put their views to the electorate.

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep calm and I shall give way to him in a moment.
We have always said that we would put before the electorate the Government's proposition, which we put to the electorate at last May's election and which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of London. The Liberal Democrats would love to be in government and they could then put their proposition, but they are not and they should therefore accept that they are not in a position to do so.

Mr. Hughes: I am not so arrogant as to suggest that the Government put our proposition to the electorate;

I suggest that they put a choice to the electorate. Why do not the Government allow the electorate to decide, rather than insist on determining the question?

Mr. Raynsford: That is exactly what the Government are doing. We are putting the proposition that we put to the electorate last May. The electorate voted for the Labour party, which had made it clear that it proposed a Greater London authority comprising a mayor and an assembly. We said that we would consult the people of London before legislating. That was our pledge and that is what we are doing, in marked contrast with the Conservative party, which consulted no one when it abolished the GLC. There was no referendum or test of opinion, and it is pure humbug on the Conservatives' part now to talk about referendums, votes and tests of opinion.

Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No.
My second test was that the referendum must be capable of delivering a decisive expression of public opinion. Those two questions do not guarantee that. If I, as a proponent of the Government's package of a mayor and an assembly together, voted yes on both questions, only to find that a mayor alone had been approved in the referendum, I would be appalled. My vote would have contributed to an outcome that I did not want. We have repeatedly emphasised that the mayor's powers must be balanced by the accountability provided by the assembly. Without that framework of accountability, too much power would be concentrated in one person's hands, yet, under the amendment made in another place, I would be denied the option of a vote for the combination of mayor and assembly, which forms the basis of the Government's proposal.
It is pretty rich for the Opposition to devise a couple of questions that would deny the people of London an opportunity to say yes or no to the proposal contained in the Government's election manifesto, which was supported by the overwhelming majority of Londoners. That is the sheer hypocrisy of the Opposition parties.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister knows that the majority of Londoners did not vote Labour at the election. We discussed that last time and the Minister must withdraw that claim. If his case is to be credible, he must persuade the electorate to vote "yes, yes". They then get exactly what he wants and will have answered both parts of the question in the affirmative. He simply does not have confidence in his own case.

Mr. Raynsford: On the contrary. We have just heard from the hon. Gentleman the typical Liberal Democrat ploy of trying to get their own way, and denying the people of London the opportunity to vote on the Government's proposition. That was endorsed by 49.5 per cent. of the electorate of London last May—a rather larger proportion than that which voted for the Liberal Democrats.
The two questions drafted by the Opposition risk peoples' votes carrying the day for a package with which they do not agree. That is good neither for clarity nor for democratic choice.
Thirdly, the Government should not be in the business of putting forward unworkable propositions in which they do not believe and which they would not implement, but that is precisely what those two questions risk. What would the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) do if he were faced by a vote in favour of a mayor without an assembly? What would the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) do if he were faced with a vote for an assembly without a mayor? Would they implement models of government to which they were diametrically opposed? I doubt it. I have explained that the amendments do not meet the key tests set out in our earlier deliberations.

Mr. Lansley: This is curious, because the Minister seems to suggest that the Government will not respond to an advisory referendum. Surely the point of having a referendum is to render the Government advice on the view of the electorate of London, but the Government are saying that they do not want to be given such advice and that, if they get the wrong advice, they will not follow it.

Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who has a reputation for being thoughtful in some respects, should have entirely missed the point. He talks about the Government seeking advice. The Government are seeking not advice but the view of the electorate on a specific proposition. We are seeking clarity. In the last debate, he was all in favour of clarity. He now peddles the argument for ambiguity. The point that I have already made to him, and which he appears incapable of understanding, is that, if the questions as now phrased were put to the electorate, people would be voting for propositions the outcome of which they could not know.
There are several permutations that could lead to the result that people least want as a result of voting in the way that they thought would accord with their views. That is the problem. The Conservative who does not want an assembly but wants a mayor could vote yes for a mayor and yes for an assembly, which seems to be roughly the Conservative party position, and end up having voted for the assembly, because that is a separate vote, but not getting the mayor because the majority were against one. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) does not seem able to understand the problem that there would be no clarity. There would be confusion and uncertainty.
I have explained that the amendments do not meet the key tests set in our earlier deliberations. The Opposition have failed utterly to come up with two questions that meet the requirements that we set, and they have equally failed to refute the Government's case for a single question. We must therefore ask why the amendments were pressed in the first place. As with the previous amendment, the answer can be only that they are determined to wreck our clear manifesto commitment to rostore democratic citywide government in London.
As I said earlier, the Opposition parties dare not do so openly, because they know that our proposals command the support of the overwhelming majority of Londoners. They have resorted to the subterfuge of wrecking

amendments. That is not an honourable or creditable approach. It is, of course, all too typical of the Conservatives, who have twisted and turned on the issue over the past year. Twelve months ago, they were saying that there was no need for a new authority for London.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: The people of London gave their verdict overwhelmingly on that proposition on 1 May last year. I invite the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) to consider that point: does he agree with the outcome of the general election on 1 May, and will he respect it?

Mr. Howarth: If it was the clearly expressed will of the electorate of London last year that there should be a mayor and elected assembly, and if the Minister is Mystic Meg and knows the outcome already, why is he holding the referendum in the first place?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman ignores the point that I have made many times already. It was a manifesto commitment that we would hold a referendum to confirm the support of the people of London for our proposition. I hope that even he would not suggest that we should break manifesto pledges.
Twelve months ago, the Conservatives did not want an assembly or authority for London. The people rejected their view. Now, realising that they are profoundly unpopular, they have started to change their position. They now say that they think that there is a case for a mayor. They cannot bring themselves to agree with the concept of a strategic authority and are therefore going for a halfway house of support for a mayor but rejection of an assembly. It is difficult to understand how any political party could get itself into such a ludicrous position until one recalls that it is not the product of rational analysis but of the Tories being told by their spin doctors to change their policy without having thought through the issues.
Perhaps the more interesting question is not how the Conservative party got itself into this mess, but why the Liberal Democrats should have been so keen to join them in opposing the Government's proposals. In their case, it is once again, as with the Conservatives, not the product of any sensible or rational analysis. Indeed, it was notable that, in the other place, those Liberal Democrat peers who had given serious thought to the governance of London—I think especially of the distinguished former director of the London School of Economics, Lord Dahrendorf—did not support their party's wrecking amendments. Lord Dahrendorf was explicit in saying that he supported
the Government's Bill without any ifs and buts."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 1997; Vol. 584, c. 428.]
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, to whom I will happily give way, should perhaps consider that the person in his party perhaps best qualified from experience to comment on the governance of London explicitly repudiated his party's position in the other place.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is true that three of our colleagues supported the Government in the other place.
Three of the Government's colleagues supported us—two former London Members of Parliament and one other Member. Does the Minister accept that it is as valid to regard the opinion of his dissenters as it is to regard the opinion of ours?

Mr. Raynsford: If any of the dissenters on the Labour Benches had had as distinguished a career in analysis of the governance of London as Lord Dahrendorf, I would have treated their opinions with respect. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he was wrong once again. He often is. It was not three but four Liberal Democrat peers who voted for the Government, one of whom happened to be their Deputy Chief Whip. I have to put it to the hon. Gentleman that his party, as usual, did not know what it was doing.
The truth is that the Liberal Democrats in London are in the pocket of their local councillors, who have not the vision to see any possible alternative system of government to the conventional town hall model. A rather distinguished senior figure in the Liberal Democrat party, who was one of many others who did not vote because they could not bring themselves to vote for their party's absurd position, commented that the fault line in the Liberal Democrat party was now between the councillors and the others. That was very evident in the debates in the other House.
The two Opposition parties are united in an unholy alliance of conservatism to try to wreck the Government's radical reform proposals. The electorate will no doubt have a good chance to reflect on that on 7 May.
As my noble Friend Baroness Hayman made clear in another place, there are legitimate differences of opinion about the best form of government for London. It is perfectly acceptable that such differences exist, and I am happy to debate the issues, but the Government are not obliged to put those differences to the people of London in a referendum. We do not have to offer a vote on the Conservative position, the Liberal Democrat councillors' position or indeed any other variation.
We will seek the consent of Londoners to our considered proposal for an authority made up of an elected mayor and an assembly. We have consulted the people of London already on that and worked up detailed proposals. We have published those proposals in a White Paper well in advance of the referendum. That is the package that we believe to be the best form of government for London. That is what we promised to deliver in our manifesto. If Londoners do not agree with our proposals, they are free to vote no.
Our proposal for a single question in the referendum will allow a decisive expression of public opinion on a clear proposition. People will know exactly what they are voting for, and what they will get. If there is a yes vote, the people of London know that the Government will act, and how they will act. Londoners have waited far too long for their chance to decide on their city's future; they should not have to endure further confusion and delay now. I urge the House to reverse the Lords amendment.

Sir Norman Fowler: That is probably one of the weakest arguments that I have heard even the Minister make on these issues. We have debated them before. The distinctive feature is that his replies get worse rather than better. When he begins to attack us for being the prisoners

of spin doctors, he is really scraping the barrel for an argument. To suggest that the amendment is a wrecking one is a ludicrous proposition; it has the support of a number of people representing a range of opinion.
When the Minister discussed the previous amendment, he made a great deal about the House of Lords, its rights and the hereditary peerage. He did not mention those issues again in his speech on this amendment, for the good reason that, when it came to a decision on the amendment in the other place, the Labour party managed to garner only 104 votes in the Division, which it lost. Presumably Lord Hattersley was either still out at lunch or preparing for dinner, and other Ministers were unavailable to the Whip. On that occasion, three Labour peers voted with the Conservative party, including Lord Jenkins of Putney and Lord Stallard. Lord Jenkins and Jock Stallard are not exactly pillars of the Conservative party.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why a distinguished former leader of the Greater London council, Lord Plummer, voted with the Government on that occasion?

Sir Norman Fowler: Lord Plummer doubtless voted with the Government, but, although I hate to make the Minister leave his fantasy world, I must remind him that the Opposition won that vote. His party was able to produce only 104 votes. A coalition of Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour peers managed to win the vote, for good reasons; no one can seriously doubt the strong arguments invoked.
This is an important debate and I hope that the Government will not move the closure before the Minister for Transport in London, who is meant to responding to the debate, has the opportunity to do so. It shows an unappealing lack of confidence in her that the closure was moved before she had the opportunity to say a word. Presumably there was a risk that she would deter people from voting in her Lobby. The decision to move the closure was extremely discourteous to Labour's chosen candidate for mayor of London. We have already made it clear that the Conservative party backs her candidature. We imagine that she will soon stand down from office to take up that challenge.
The amendment refers to an issue that has remained crucial throughout the debate on the Bill. The Government have been urged not only by the House of Lords but by a range of other people to make provision for not one but two questions to be asked at the referendum. The public should be asked whether they support the proposal for a directly elected mayor and, separately, whether they would support the establishment of new elected assembly for London.
The Conservative party has made it clear that it supports the proposal for a directly elected mayor but opposes that for a new assembly. We are not alone in that view, because the Liberal Democrats support us, as do members of the Labour party. The most significant speech from a Labour Back Bencher in the entire debate in the House was that of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), when he roundly attacked the Government's proposals. On that occasion, Labour Back Benchers were allowed to speak, and it is significant that,


since the hon. Gentleman's speech, they have been banned from doing so. The hon. Gentleman said
We are not getting a single voice for London—we are getting two competing voices, locked into an institutionalised conflict"—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 400.]
His argument was that the crucial body was the directly elected assembly. Given his position on the GLC, that comes as no surprise.
The hon. Member for Brent, East revealed that many people in the Greater London Labour party were unhappy with the Government's proposals, usually because they wanted an assembly but did not want a mayor. He was scathing about the whole consultation process. He said:
If we were prepared to trust Londoners, we would have a debate in which Ministers could marshal their arguments and we could challenge them. If Ministers could persuade Londoners, Ministers would get their way, but they do not trust Londoners, which is why they will not be given a choice. Londoners will be told, 'Take it or leave it.' That is insulting to Londoners. We have just had a referendum in Scotland and we allowed the people to have two votes to decide about tax policy, but Londoners can have only one option … we should not deny Londoners the chance to decide what system of government they want. I am deeply ashamed of the way my party has proceeded tonight, because it is an offence to Londoners and an insult to their intelligence."—[Official Report,19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 403.]
That was the opinion of the hon. Member for Brent, East. Whatever other criticisms one can make of him, he has taken some interest in the affairs of London and local government during the past few years.
11 pm
By any standards, no one can seriously claim that the idea of two questions was dreamed up in the House of Lords. It has been at the heart of the debate on the London referendum throughout. A large part of the press has supported the two-question proposal. The Times said:
These are two different issues. They require two separate questions and answers".
It said:
If the Government has its way, Londoners will be asked to consider one single proposition in which they must either accept or reject both a mayor and an elected assembly. The electorate will not be allowed to choose between them.
Referring to the Prime Minister, The Times said:
He imposed that view on a reluctant party. He should not do so again.
The Guardian expressed a similar opinion.
There are two separate propositions. It is possible to argue for a mayor, to be a voice for London and to carry out other functions, without accepting the case for a new assembly. That is especially so, in the light of the effect of the proposals in the Bill combined with the effect of the proposals in other legislation currently before the House—in particular, the Regional Development Agencies Bill and a House of Lords private Member's Bill, the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill. That shows that we are heading for an incredible, multi-layered bureaucratic administration for London.
I should have thought that many hon. Members on the Labour Benches—if there were many hon. Members on the Labour Benches; remarkably, not only do they not speak now, but they do not even turn up to listen to the debate—

Mr. Raynsford: Yours are going.

Sir Norman Fowler: I think that common observation will illustrate that the Conservatives are better represented in the Chamber than are the massed ranks of the Labour party, who are, presumably, even now in the Tea Room.
Let us consider what the structure of local government in London will be if we continue on the lines that the Government propose. First, we shall have a directly elected mayor, with powers yet to be specified by the Government. Secondly, we shall have a directly elected assembly, also with powers yet to be specified by the Government. Thirdly, we shall have a regional development agency, appointed by the Secretary of State, but with powers that will impinge on all of London. Thirdly, we shall have the Government office for London, which, on past performance, will be extraordinarily reluctant to give up any power or influence.
Fourthly, the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill will allow boroughs to apply to have their own executive mayor. I gather that the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is already working on that model. If all these plans go ahead, residents of Hammersmith and Fulham, of which I am one, will live under a London mayor and a borough executive mayor, and there will also be powers for a small cabinet around the borough mayor.
Finally, at long last, in this new bureaucratic system for London, we get to the borough councilors—the people who are directly accountable to the public they serve. They are at the end of the queue. Their power will be reduced—there is no other sensible explanation of what is happening. It is simply not possible to argue that the power and influence of borough councillors can remain the same given the vast superstructure that has been erected above them.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is interesting to note that he is clearly unsympathetic to the proposals for democratic reform in local government advanced by Lord Hunt through legislation in another place. I am rather surprised that the Opposition do not support that measure.
I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that he was incorrect in claiming that the development agency for London would be appointed by the Secretary of State. We have made it clear that there will be a direct line of democratic accountability from that agency to the mayor and the assembly of London. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct the impression that he has given.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I remind the House that this is rather a narrow amendment. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to speak to it.

Sir Norman Fowler: I accept that warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is that we are debating whether there should be a separate vote for a mayorf and


a separate vote for an assembly. A crucial argument in allowing a vote on an assembly is that the Government will insert new layers of local government into the system. In other words, it is crucial to understand that, as well as the directly elected assembly, other layers will be inserted by different legislation. I shall not labour the point. However, it was not clear from the Minister's remarks who will appoint the development agency.

Mr. Raynsford: The mayor.

Sir Norman Fowler: The mayor will appoint the development agency for London, but we are correct in saying that it will be an entirely appointed body. There is no question of its being elected democratically—in other words, it will be a major quango. [Interruption.] Let us not have any arguments from a sedentary position. The Minister is provoking my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
The Secretary of State appoints the members of other regional development agencies, but, in the case of London, the mayor will make the appointments. There is no question but that the members will be appointees and that the body will be a quango.
One does not have to be a paid-up Conservative Member to see that the system being proposed is out of control. Even those who advocated the idea of a London mayor must now wonder about the enormous machine that is being constructed. The House of Lords was entirely correct to pass the amendment. It will enable the public to decide whether they want to remove at least one layer of administration and bureaucracy that the Government are inserting.
The Opposition have no argument about the mayor: we support the concept of a mayor. However, for all the reasons that I have stated, we oppose the idea of a directly elected assembly. If an assembly is required as a checking measure, we propose that it should comprise borough leaders—it could even include executive mayors, if power has passed to them by that stage. The Minister challenges me on that point. We seek an assurance—which is one of the reasons why I was so sad not to hear the winding-up speech of the Minister for Transport in London—[Interruption.] The Minister must have a glimmer of understanding that we are working in a democratic assembly and that hon. Members have an absolute and utter right to put their points of view. It is not enough for the Minister to say, "We achieved a big majority at the last election, and this is our will." We do not accept that, and the sooner the Minister gets used to that, the better it will be for him.

Mr. Raynsford: Rather than expressing mock indignation, the right hon. Gentleman should speak to his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) about honouring undertakings about the length of winding-up speeches. If those undertakings had been honoured, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London would have had time to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can return to the amendment.

Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister is totally erroneous and he is certainly out of order. It is a great pity that he does not calm down and listen to the arguments. [Interruption.] Perhaps I may be allowed to continue.
If we go down the Government's proposed road, there will be exactly the kind of institutionalised conflict that the hon. Member for Brent, East forecast. There will be conflict between the mayor and the assembly, and between the elected assembly and the elected borough councils. It will lead to a transfer of power from the boroughs to the centre. It is fanciful, ludicrous, to believe that elected assembly members will be content simply to carry out strategic thinking and checking. I can think of no elected assembly that would be happy with such a role. Step by step and year by year, the members of the assembly will seek further powers.
It was entirely clear from Labour speeches on Second Reading that Labour Members want a return to the Greater London council. They consider it a great pity that the GLC was abolished and they would like to see it return. That is their honest view, although it is not a view which the Government would dare to express. The powers that go to the assembly are unlikely to come from the Government and Whitehall, because, if history is any guide, they will fight like tigers to preserve their own. The powers that eventually go to the assembly will be those of the boroughs.
The Minister challenged me and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to table clear amendments that gave the public and the House a choice. We think that we have already tabled such amendments and I am glad that the Liberal Democrats have come round to our way of thinking on the matter.

Mr. Paul Tyler: How does the right hon. Gentleman keep a straight face?

Sir Norman Fowler: The amendments are exactly the same. The Liberal Democrat Chief Whip would realise that if he knew anything about these matters, which I doubt.
The amendments are clear and I think that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I can agree on that. Above all, they give the people of London a vital choice and the House should support that. We have consistently argued for two questions. The other place was right to pass the amendment, and I urge the House to support it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) looked forward to the day when Hammersmith and Fulham had directly elected mayors. Even if, with our support, he does not win the battle for a referendum with two questions, he may soon get two referendums, each with one question. People may be asked, "Do you want a directly elected mayor and an assembly for London?" and, "Do you want a directly elected mayor and an assembly for Hammersmith?" There is a consolation prize ahead of the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall not get that because there are no powers for such a referendum. That is precisely my point. There are no powers for a referendum anywhere but in London. That is why I want an assurance from the Government that the House will be given the opportunity to debate the private Member's Bill in the other place that is being promoted by Lord Hunt.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. At the moment, there are no such referendum powers. I share


his view that there should be such powers and that there should be a debate. My colleagues and I share the scepticism about some elements of Lord Hunt's Bill.
I was reflecting on what the debate on the Lords amendment would be called if it were a novel.

Mr. Raynsford: "Much Ado About Nothing."

Mr. Hughes: From a sedentary position, the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would help progress enormously if we did not have interruptions from a sedentary position, from Ministers or anybody else.

Mr. Hughes: Particularly if they are so misinformed as to think that "Much Ado About Nothing" is a novel.
The title I gave it was "The great abolition justifies the great endorsement". The Government's argument seems to be that, because the Tories were wicked—which they were—in abolishing the GLC without asking anybody, which is what happened, they are now justified in saying, "This is our proposal and this is the only show in town."
The Liberal Democrats want the Bill to become law as the House of Lords has now amended it. On a Liberal Democrat amendment, supported by Conservatives, three Labour peers—I hope that the Government will concede, on reflection, that they are not insubstantial Labour peers, as they included two eminent former Members of this House and one other—and independent peers, including a former Speaker of the House, the other place amended the Bill to provide that the referendum should have two questions, not one. The amendment also provides that the schedule should have two clear questions, not one simple question.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the vote in the other place, the Government were supported by the distinguished former leader of the GLC—Lord Plummer, a Conservative peer—Viscount Falkland, the Liberal Democrat deputy chief whip in the Lords, three more Liberal Democrats and some of the most distinguished Cross-Benchers, including Lord Carnarvon who chairs the all-party London group? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is a pretty clear sign that there was substantial support for the Government's position from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Conservative Benches and the Cross Benches.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister fails to understand an important point. The Government should allow people to express their opinion. We did. The Minister corrected me earlier, and I accept that four of our colleagues voted with the Government. If the Government had not steamrollered their view through their party, their regional conference and their local parties, ignoring grassroots opinion, and if the Minister had allowed the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and all the others to vote as they wished, he would have found that many of his hon. Friends would have voted with the Liberal Democrats.
Given that, for the first time in the history of Parliament, we now have the rule that, if one votes against the Government, one risks deselection with no reselection, and there is no right to object to the Government's policy, of course most people follow the party line. It is that, or no job. In the other place, thank God, some people were more independent. I support the idea that there should have been a freedom to vote. There should have been freedom in this place and the other place. If my hon. Friends here had wanted to vote differently, I hope that we should have allowed them to do so.
I also believe that the voters of London should have a free choice and not be dragooned into one lobby with only one choice, imposed by one minority Government.

Mr. Lansley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it seems odd that the Government deny the right of the other place to amend the Bill while moving on to a detailed exegesis of who voted which way and what value should be ascribed to their vote?

Mr. Hughes: I began to wonder whether we were evaluating whether an earl was worth more than a viscount or a baron and whether, if they happened to have been Members of Parliament, that added a few points to their credentials. I believe that, even in the other place, each vote counts as one. On two occasions a couple of weeks ago, according to the calculations by the Whips in that place, we won. My understanding is that that is the way in which this place works. It may be simple. It may be simpler even than the Government's original proposal, but, if it has been all right for this country for a few hundred years, I reckon that it may be all right for a few hundred more.

Mr. Brooke: Did the hon. Gentleman observe that, although the Minister claimed three quarters of an hour ago that Lord Dahrendorf voted with the Government, the Minister did not quote his name the second time? The reason is that Lord Dahrendorf did not vote for the Government in the second vote.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. However, like some of my colleagues in the other place, Lord Dahrendorf not only spoke in favour of the principle of directly elected mayors, but did not vote against the proposal that Londoners should be able to decide that question.

Mr. Raynsford: In response to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I should like to make it clear that I specifically said that Lord Dahrendorf spoke; I did not say that he voted. I would not wish to be misrepresented. Lord Dahrendorf, who is a distinguished former director of the London school of economics and who has studied the issue in great depth, reached an informed view as to the right basis for government and said that he fully supported the Government's position. That is the point that I made and I hope that that is accepted.

Mr. Hughes: This is in danger of becoming a seminar on decision making in the House of Lords. There was a heated debate among my colleagues in both Houses. The result is that several colleagues—Lord Taverne for example—share the view not only that there should be a


directly elected mayor, but that there should be two questions and that people should be allowed to make the choice, whatever we, the legislators, think.
As I said in an intervention, it was rich of the Government to claim that, because the amendment was passed by an unelected hereditary second Chamber, it should not be listened to. I have been here 15 years this month. On several occasions, the other place has either succeeded or nearly succeeded in preventing this place from getting away with things that it should not have got away with.
The other place may not be perfect and I do not like the way in which it is composed, but it is an important safeguard. It is composed as it is because past and present Governments have not changed it. The Government could have changed it, but they have not. It does not lie in their mouths to complain.
How we govern our capital city is a big and important issue. It is right that it should have a lot of attention because this country needs a capital city that works best. It is exciting that we are going to get London government back. My colleagues and I thoroughly share that view.
We welcome a Government who want to roseore government to London. We have said that unequivocally. We think that the Government started from the right position: they wanted to rostore democratic government in London. However, there is no theology about that and we are here because we think that they have the wrong proposal. We are entitled to say that, the Tories are entitled to their view, and others are, too. Worse, having fixed on a view, the Government have not been listening or adapting their view—formed originally by a relatively small number of people—in the light of the public's opinion.
In many respects, we think that the Government have been far too timid in not giving the proposed London government tax-varying powers and in not allowing it any control over strategic health matters. Therefore, in many respects, it is not a bold and radical proposal. Only one thing appears to be a huge totem pole of machismo and conviction for the Government: we have to have both a directly elected mayor and an assembly, whether people like it or not. The Government appear to be wedded to that proposal.
The Green Paper asked 62 questions to elicit opinions. The one question that most people wanted to answer was not even asked. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was in the manifesto."] I shall not have a great debate on the manifesto. There was a pledge in the manifesto, but that does not mean that the manifesto either expressly stated that there would not be two questions—I have a copy of the manifesto here, and it did not even imply that—or that the Government should not respond if there were a well of opinion in London favouring two questions.
We are in for a hard time if we have a Government who will never, even in the light of circumstances or of public opinion, alter a single word implied in their manifesto. The curse of undemocratic Governments is to be wedded to a manifesto, without engaging the brain. It is important not only to apply policies and principles but to listen to what the people are saying and, whenever possible, to give them the maximum choice.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he has been generous in giving way. Does he recall that,

in a previous debate, the Minister for Transport in London told us that, although none of the 61 questions dealt with how the referendum questions would be phrased, 10 per cent. of responses raised exactly that matter, asking how voters would be consulted in the referendum?

Mr. Hughes: I have read our earlier debates on the matter, and I think that that is what the Minister said. Although the summary of responses that the Government supplied—it is in the Library, and I have a copy—does not provide such a breakdown, I believe that a clear majority of those who responded on that matter wanted there to be two questions. I shall be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong on that. Where a view was expressed, it supported the Opposition's and not the Government's position.
We are in this muddle and are having a debate between this place and the other place over the Lords amendments because we have gone about the process in the wrong way. There is no theology about it; logically—I repeat our position, because I do not want Ministers to misrepresent it—we think that there should have been a Green Paper and then a White Paper. After we had seen the proposals, we should have seen a Bill, so that we knew what the public would be asked to decide in a referendum. We should then have a referendum. We are being asked to approve a referendum before knowing the proposals—which could be very different from those in the Green Paper.
The arguments in the other place on whether we should attach the Bill to the White Paper and on a post-legislative referendum are perfectly valid, although there is no perfect answer to them. We simply believe that the Government have got themselves into difficulty because they were determined to hold the referendum in a certain manner. Their difficulties are of their own making.
There is a difference between this debate and the debate on Lords amendment No. 1. It is fair to say—without misrepresenting anyone's opinion—that, as was conceded by the Government and Opposition Front Benchers, Lords amendment No. 1 was an accident. The Government did not think that they would lose the vote on it, and the Tories did not think that they would win.

Sir Norman Fowler: What did the hon. Gentleman think?

Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly valid question. I do not think that we thought that the Tories would win.
Lords amendment No. 2 was not an accident but was completely intentional. It was absolutely not a wrecking amendment. It was also not, as the Minister suggested, contrived in secret. The Government asked us to produce a proposal that we negotiated in the full light of day and tabled when the sun was shining. Several days were spent preparing it before it was debated in the House, and there was a vote on it on a normal weekday afternoon. There was absolutely no secrecy about it. For the Government to suggest—in the words of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)— "something of the night" about our doings is very unfair. We did what the Government asked us to do.
I remind the House of what the Minister asked us to do. I remember the stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not allowed to quote, so I shall not. On 19 November,


the Minister said that Liberal Democrats and Conservatives could not agree on the formulation of a common wording; that the Liberal Democrat amendment that was being considered would not allow the Conservatives to have what they wanted; that there was no single and simple proposition for a simple second question; that there was no simple second question; and that even the Tory and Liberal Democrat proposals would not do justice to people with a different point of view.
I do not know what the academic analysis would be, but it seems that the amendment passed in another place is pretty simple. It asks whether the voter is in favour of an elected mayor, yes or no? It then asks him to put a cross in the appropriate box. If that is not simple, I am a Dutchman.
The Government do not trust Londoners to answer two questions. For some reason, they do not think that Londoners can manage to express two opinions on two linked questions and understand what the consequences could be. The Minister repeatedly argues that people might end up not getting what they wanted but, under the Government's proposal, many people will have no choice but to vote for something that will not give them what they want.

Sir Robert Smith: It seems odd that the Government do not trust Londoners to take two votes but wished to impose two votes on the people of Scotland, although many did not want two. The Government perversely intend to do the opposite of what the people whom they are meant to serve want them to do.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend makes a point to which I can anticipate the Minister's response, because I heard it yesterday. The Minister's answer will be that the Scots did not have two constitutional questions to answer—one was constitutional and one was non-constitutional. However, I had always thought that tax varying was a bit of a constitutional issue. In any event, that was the Minister's answer when he and I and Lord Archer appeared on television yesterday—it was in fact this afternoon; it just feels like yesterday because we have been here so long. On the other hand, it will soon be yesterday.
Even if what the Minister says were true, there were two questions in Scotland, and the Scots managed perfectly well. They answered both and got a result with which they were happy, although one result was closer than the other. I think that the people of London would be perfectly capable of undertaking the same exercise.
It is of course credible for the Government to put across their point of view and say that Londoners have to take the whole package. We do not dispute that they can do that, but we are saying that it is not the best way to proceed. It is credible for the Conservative party to say that it wants a mayor and to ask people to vote for a mayor and against an assembly. We happen not to agree with that, but the Conservatives are entitled to put their point of view, just as we are entitled to say that we want a traditional parliamentary-type system whereby members are elected and the leader is chosen from among them.
They are all credible propositions. All we are saying is that we should not have a little debate here that limits the options to one. Many more people would vote in the referendum if there were a better choice of question than if there is only the "take it or leave it" option.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not listened to what I was saying. Will he explain how, under the formulation that he is proposing, someone who believes in the Government's proposition that there should be a mayor and an assembly, and that either one or the other without the total package would be a mistake, can vote? There would be no guarantee that the outcome would be the two linked together. That is the defect in the hon. Gentleman's formulation, and he should recognise that.

Mr. Hughes: I have heard that question before, and it troubles me to think that that is what has been exercising all the great brains in the inner sanctum of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for so long. The answer to the question is that the outcome cannot be guaranteed; we have to encourage people to vote for both.

Mr. Raynsford: There is no clarity.

Mr. Hughes: That is not the case, but I shall deal with that point in a moment. It is exactly the same as the dilemma facing, for example, a Liberal Democrat who on 7 May wants to vote for an assembly but does not want a directly elected mayor, or a Tory who wants to vote for a mayor but not a directly elected assembly. They have to make a judgment. We shall recommend to our people to vote yes, not as our preferred option, but as our second best option. We are waiting to hear what the Tories will recommend.
We cannot know. The Minister will say that the Government offer certainty. A voter will know that, if they vote for the Government's proposal, it may get through. Is it better to give people a choice that they do not want, with the certainty that they will get something that they do not want, or to give them a choice that includes something that they want, with slightly less certainty that they will achieve it? People would rather have less certainty but know that they could get what they want than be forced to have something that they do not want, knowing that the only certainty is that they will get it.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is not the paradoxical delight of the proposal that the Government have naively put that it maximises the chances of a no vote, giving real hope to the anti campaign in the forthcoming referendum? Those who are dissatisfied with part of the Government's proposal for a Greater London authority will have an incentive to vote no for the whole thing.

Mr. Hughes: That may be true; I do not know. Logically, it is likely that a coalition will be formed of people with different reasons for voting no. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has been an assiduous participant in these debates. There is a coalition on our proposal that includes Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and absent Labour Members. I heard one on the radio today saying that they support us. I shall


not embarrass the London Labour Member whom I heard today by naming him, but I heard him and Labour Members know that. That Labour Member was aware that this was the right proposal, that there should be no directly elected mayor and that there should be two questions. I shall produce the London News Direct tape tomorrow if the Minister does not believe me.
The benefit of our proposal is that each party's preferred outcome is possible. The Tories could win. There is an incentive for them to campaign and get people out to vote. We could win. The Government could win. To my simple little mind, a proposal in which anyone could win, a bit like the lottery, is more exciting and more likely to induce participation than a proposal in which only the Government can win and nobody else can get what they want. I shall give way for the last time to my erstwhile opponent.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman won on the previous occasion. Does he agree that the dilemma that the Minister has posed is the same as was faced in Scotland? The Government believed that there should be a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers. There were two questions. It was possible that they would not get everything that they wanted. In Scotland, they were prepared to give two votes. Why are they not prepared to give two votes in London? Is not the issue the same in principle?

Mr. Hughes: In logic, that question also baffles me. I think that the answer is that, before the general election, a few people, including the Prime Minister, got together and decided on the package that they wanted. Once the Prime Minister decides, that is the end of the debate.

Mr. McNulty: It was in the manifesto.

Mr. Hughes: That is why it was in the manifesto. There were not many proposals in the manifesto that the Prime Minister did not want. I challenge the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) to offer me one. There were many proposals not in the manifesto that many of his colleagues wanted. The hon. Gentleman is on weak ground.
We think that people have to be offered more than one choice. The Government know that one choice is not real choice.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Hobson's choice.

Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is traditionally known as Hobson's choice. In this case it is Blair's choice—we get Blair's choice or we get no choice. We can vote only for or against what the Government want.
I have two final points that open the issue out. We are going down a dangerous constitutional road.
At the moment, the Government want us and their colleagues to vote later tonight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Much later."] They want us much later tonight to vote to roseore one rather unclear and unstraightforward question. The implications of the mayor-assembly relationship are not clear or straightforward. We have never had such a system in Britain before; we have never seen whether it works;

we do not know the balance of power—it might be different in the White Paper. The Lords proposal explains the Government's position. It says:
The Government propose the establishment of a Greater London Authority made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor, both to be elected by Londoners".
It puts the Government's case categorically.
The amendment then proposes two simple questions, which are much more clear and simple propositions than the Government's alternative to roll things together and not say how it will work out. The Lords propose two simple but good questions which, if I may say not a little immodestly, are right because the novel issue for Londoners this year is whether we want a directly elected mayor. If the Government do not ask people that question specifically and on its own, they are clouding the question. The Government are trying to change what the House of Lords, to its credit, put right just a couple of weeks ago.
I think that such a proposal is dangerous. In spite of the Prime Minister's speech in Scarborough at the weekend and what I hoped—and still hope—that Labour would do, the proposal presages a desire to impose the Government's will rather than allow a multiplicity of flowers to bloom.
My party—this is one of the reasons why I have been a member of it for more than half my life—believes in pluralism. We believe that we do not necessarily need the same form of local or regional government in every part of the country. If the Scots do not want the same form of government as the Welsh, they should not have it. It should be for them to decide. It should be part of the country's richness. The Spanish did very well when they started to work out regional government after Franco. It is different in different parts of Spain. We support that; we are pluralists, and the Government should be too. That is exactly why there should be a free vote—or at least an unwhipped vote. The signs are worrying because the Government are not only imposing their will on the single question.
The Government commissioned a report by Professor Patrick Dunleavey and Dr. Helen Margetts on electoral systems for the London assembly, which is called "Electing the London Mayor and the London Assembly". We on the Liberal Democrat Benches happen to know that the first draft was sent back for rewriting because, we understand, it did not quite say what the Government wanted it to say. I am not suggesting that they asked the authors to say things with which they did not agree. I am suggesting that the Government asked for the report to be rewritten in order that it said more clearly what the Government wanted Professor Dunleavey and Dr. Margetts to say that they agreed with.
In answer to my question,
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to place the first version of the report on the electoral system for the Greater London Assembly commissioned from Professor Dunleavey in the Library",
the Minister replied:
In line with usual practice, we do not propose to make available incomplete and uncorrected earlier drafts of the report."—[Official Report, 10 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 128.]
By not allowing people to see entirely independent academic reports without the right to recommission them, the Government are setting a worrying trend. I am


troubled that we are seeing government by diktat from Downing street and not government by decision of Parliament.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has completely misrepresented the basis on which the report from Professor Dunleavey and Dr. Margetts was presented to the Department. As with all other such reports, a draft is prepared, there is a discussion about its details, and if there are factual inaccuracies or a need for further work on particular items because certain items have not been fully covered, that further work is done. I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that there was no suppression of any point of view expressed in the report, and no pressure put on the researchers to produce any variation from the recommendations that they produced in their first draft. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. Hughes: Of course I accept what the Minister says from the Dispatch Box. It would be improper for me not to do so. However, in that case I want an answer—although it need not be given tonight—to the question why, when the first report was published and we asked to see it, and the authors said that we could, the Government prohibited us from doing so.
If that report were written at the beginning, even if it had drafting errors or was typed in the wrong colour ink, or whatever, I do not accept the idea that a Government committed to open government and to discussing their proposals with a view to getting advice on how they could be improved, can claim to have a consistent attitude if they keep it for a long time and allow it to be read only at a much later late. That is certainly what happened, because we were told that the authors would have been happy for the report to be released to us some time before.
Challenged to agree on some wording, the Opposition parties agreed. Challenged to come up with a proposal, we have done that, too. The Minister had said—I told him at the time that it was to his credit—that the Government would give serious consideration to a jointly agreed proposal with two simple questions.
However, I do not think that the Government have given serious consideration to our proposal. If there is a defeat in the House of Lords at about 6 o'clock, the Government say they are angry at 7 o'clock, they issue a sound bite at 8 o'clock and a press release at 9 o'clock, and by 10 o'clock declare their intention to reverse the defeat, that is not serious consideration. It does not sound to me as if there was much reflection—

Sir Patrick Cormack: That is how they always do things.

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps. It does not sound as though serious consideration was given to whether the Lords amendment should be accepted. If the Government had listened to consultation—most of the responses were on our side of the argument—to their Back Benchers who know a lot about such matters, or to the peers, who by a majority vote freely entered into, decided that the Government were wrong, they would have been willing to change their mind.
The Liberal Democrats say that whether London should have a directly elected mayor is a big controversial issue. It is also an unprecedented issue. We are likely to have foisted on us something that we may—not necessarily will—live to regret.
We shall probably have an assembly with no independence, and the electoral system that the Government are determined to put through will mean a mayoral type of election that rules out people who are not members of big political parties. There will be no chance to vote against, no matter how weak the assembly and how powerful the mayor—or how strong the assembly and how weak the mayor. The Government are saying, "Take it or leave it."
We think that the people should have been asked the questions and the decision should go to the people, and we are even stronger in our view tonight than we were a few weeks ago. We are grateful that the House of Lords agreed with us, and we ask the Government to respect the other place. They should not get away with saying that, because the Lords are not elected on party tickets as we are here, they should be ignored. This time the Lords are right, and they should be listened to.

Mr. Eric Forth: The debate surely illustrates better than most the folly of referendums as a means of trying to decide what are invariably difficult and complex questions. The decision before us, as it turns out, is just such a difficult and complex question, not the simple-minded question that the Government suggested when they started out on the venture.
The question has become no simpler. If anything, it has become more complicated. The excellent speech by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) showed that all too well.
The Minister has imported over and over again the tired old new Labour red herring of the mandate. I am getting sick and tired of hearing about that mandate.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: You would.

Mr. Forth: It is being seriously suggested to us, apparently, that each voter assiduously studied the Labour party's manifesto, and then voted in a deliberate way to endorse each individual item in it.
I find that somewhat difficult to believe, and I reject totally the Minister's suggestion that the people of London rushed out to the polling booths with wild enthusiasm to vote for the Labour party and its manifesto specifically so that they could get not only a mayor and an assembly but a single-question referendum.

Mr. Lansley: Did my right hon. Friend note that Ministers are trying to suggest that, because the Conservative Government abolished the Greater London council on the basis of a general election mandate, and did not hold a referendum, they did not have a true mandate? They want to have it both ways: they have a mandate, but we did not have one when we abolished the GLC.

Mr. Forth: That is a valid point, and it underlines what nonsense the mandate argument is. We can put that to one side and forget it for the purposes of this or any other debate.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Labour party manifesto—we know now what new Labourspeak is all about—uses the words:
Following a referendum to confirm popular demand".
How can a referendum without even a minimum number of votes required, let alone any opportunity for people to choose what they want, confirm popular demand?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. The concept of popular demand is an interesting and difficult one, especially in this context. Those of us who have the privilege to represent London constituencies are unaware of any popular demand for the nonsense that the Government want to impose on the people of London.
We are being asked to accept what I can only characterise as an excess of bureaucracy, and indeed even an excess of democracy. We are now contemplating a London in which hapless Londoners will be expected to vote from time to time for a borough councillor, a Member of Parliament, a Member of the European Parliament, a member of a Greater London assembly, and a mayor.
Some of those may provide a valuable service—Members of Parliament perform a vital function, as we all know, as do London borough councillors, who are close to their communities—but we must ask exactly what additional democratic or governmental value the members of the assembly or indeed the mayor will bring. Such questions are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The amendment is about whether there are to be one or two questions. It is tightly drawn.

Mr. Forth: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The questions are about the assembly members and the mayor. I was leading into that part of my argument when you very kindly reminded me that I should perhaps move on to it, which I shall now do.
People will want to ask whether they will get additional value from an extra level of government as represented by the proposed assembly, and/or an extra level of government as represented by a mayor. The Government have tried to tell us that those proposals are indissolubly linked, and can have governmental validity only if they are taken together. That is the core of the Minister's argument, but I do not believe that the people of London see it that way at all. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey brought that out extremely well.
It must be right that people—voters and taxpayers—who are being asked to accept additional levels of government, and therefore of bureaucracy and, almost inevitably, of cost, should be allowed to make their judgment about whether they believe that such an imposition would be valid for them as Londoners. They should be able to decide about each level separately.
I leave aside the validity of the arguments about whether London requires those extra levels of government. I recognise that that is not relevant to the amendment, and I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not want me to rehearse those arguments again. We are considering whether it is necessary for the people of London to be allowed to consider the questions, and answer them separately.
For the life of me, I cannot see why the Government are afraid of asking the questions separately. Is it contempt for the ability of the people of London to make that judgment? Is it one of the characteristics we have learnt that the Government show above all—an arrogance which says that, because they have a very large parliamentary majority, they can sweep aside all other considerations and impose their will on the people of London, or the country as a whole?
What about the Government's relationship with the House of Lords? Why are the Government so keen to do away with the hereditary peers? It is almost precisely because of what we are considering tonight. The second chamber has performed its role responsibly and thoughtfully. The Minister was at pains to tell us how thoughtfully the Members of the House of Lords had considered the matter, but conveniently ignored the fact that they delivered what he would regard as the wrong answer.
We can see why the Government want to abolish the second chamber—in all meaningful senses—as quickly as possible. They want to deny us—the people of London in this case—that revising, thoughtful approach that we have learnt to value.
We are beginning to see clearly the Government's true motive. They will use what they describe as their mandate—their enormous parliamentary majority—to railroad through these proposals, completely ignoring not just the wishes of the people but the considered views of another place. The matters are tied up closely. The merit of the case is vital, but the Government want to deny the people of London the possibility of looking at and answering the questions separately.
I remain to be persuaded that the people of London need or want either an assembly or a mayor, and I would want at least the opportunity to consider the questions on their merits and to be allowed to give my answer. I would take my chance—like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—that the answers to these separate questions might not be the ones I wanted. I would seek to persuade my fellow citizens of my point of view, but I would accept the verdict of the ballot box. Why is the Minister not prepared to accept that? What is he afraid of? Does he think that he might get two "no" answers, or one "yes" and one "no"?
Why does the Minister not have confidence in his own case, with all the powers of persuasion and propaganda that the Government have? If he were confident, he would be more than happy to go forward on that basis to get the double "yes" answer he wants. The Government will not do that, because they are not certain of the outcome. They are afraid of the potential power of the arguments—which we have not really heard yet—against these extra levels of bureaucracy and the different layers and costs.
All this comes before we have heard in any detailed or coherent sense the answer to the important questions about the relationships that will exist among all the different institutions, all of them elbowing one another aside and crunching the people of London beneath them as they attempt to take them who knows where.
Until or unless we get the answer to those questions, the Government will not have persuaded me, and I suspect that they will not have persuaded the House. We must have proper answers. I hope that the House will agree with the other place and reject the Government's arguments tonight.

12 midnight

Mr. Wilkinson: At this midnight hour, I should like to try to analyse rationally the Minister's arguments in favour of overturning their Lordships' considered amendment.
First, the Minister argued that it was pragmatic to do so. I do not comprehend how this Administration's entirely dogmatic attitude towards this issue could be considered pragmatic. A pragmatic Government would seek to establish a genuine dialogue with all the interested parties, and find a form of words that best meets the democratic imperative of finding a question that is most acceptable to all the participants. If a referendum is to be valid, it must be based on consensus. That is absolutely fundamental.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has expended a great deal of intellect and emotion on these matters. The most disappointed people must be the Liberal Democrats, who have had a "special relationship" with the Government and are participants in the constitutional Committee. Where is their pay-off? Even Lord Dahrendorf does not seem to behave as one would expect a happy Liberal Democrat to behave in the other place.
Democracy is about genuine choice, and the people of London, in having a single question foisted on them, are definitely not being given genuine choice. The Minister says that the Government's steamroller policy is based on the need to avoid ambiguities. The consequence is to maximise ambiguity rather than diminish it.
Inasmuch as there is no scientific estimation of popular opinion on the two constituent elements of the Greater London authority, the legitimacy of each will never thereafter be properly quantified and evaluated. The likelihood must be that the GLC will go into operation fundamentally deficient in that scientific endorsement by a clearly established popular vote on its constituent parts.

Sir Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend will recall that the Labour party manifesto specifically promised a referendum on an elected assembly and a mayor. Given that it was written in simple English, people must have concluded that there would be a referendum on those two issues, and that they would be put separately. It would be reasonable for any moderate person to assume that, if the Labour party intended that there would be only one question, it would have made that point specifically in its manifesto.

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend, who has consistently taken an intense interest in local government over many years, and who has been a London Member of Parliament for a long while, is entirely right in his interpretation of the Labour party manifesto. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made clear, the pernicious doctrine of the mandate is not even implemented properly. It is a perverted mandate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet explains. It is Stalinism with a trendy face. That is what new Labour is all about.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my hon. Friend has read the Labour party manifesto for time out of mind, as we all have. In the same sentence as it says
Following a referendum",

it states:
there will be … a strategic authority and a mayor, each directly elected.
If Labour had not wanted those issues to be decided separately in a referendum, surely the sentence would have been separated out? It is ridiculous.

Mr. Wilkinson: It is ridiculous. As I sought to suggest in my intervention in the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, the perverse consequence is likely to be that the no vote will be maximised inasmuch as people will have no confidence in the referendum per se, and certainly no confidence in it as a means of testing their opinion on the two ingredients of the assembly that they are supposed to endorse. In fact, because they will be preoccupied with their immediate future in their boroughs, thank goodness, I believe that they will be concentrating on the vote for their councillors. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, it is councillors who matter to people in their daily lives.
The experience of all hon. Members on the doorstep in London was that the Greater London Authority did not come up. In my constituency, it genuinely did not come up at all. It never came up once at any public meeting, or on any doorstep, or in any church question time or on any of the occasions which characterise the hustings in a general election campaign.
Because the question is so clearly a democratic fraud, I suspect that the winners in the referendum campaign will be the abstainers by a huge majority, as they were in the Welsh referendum, but even more so. In this case, however, people are supposed to be encouraged to vote on the Greater London authority by virtue of the fact that they are likely to go to the polling stations to vote for what really matters for them, their borough elections.
Thirdly, the Minister said that the referendum was to be a decisive expression of public opinion. We have already seen that in microcosm on the Labour Benches. The service in which I spent my formative years had the delightful expression "dumb insolence". I do not charge Labour Back Benchers with that but with a dumb insult to democracy. That is what this is all about. It is a dumbing exercise by the Labour party, and as such its stand should be utterly rejected. I am sure that it will be by the electorate. It will be seen as a fraudulent Stalinist attempt to deny the people of London the genuine choice they deserve.

Mr. Edward Davey: I have watched this process with great disappointment. I attended the Second Reading debate and the Committee. I read the reports of the debates in the House of Lords. All along, the Government's attitude has been disappointing.
The Government may say that I am a naive young Member and that I was gullible enough to take them at their word when they told the House that they were open-minded. My disappointment at their not fulfilling their word is shared outside the House. It is not only rock stars who now realise that the Labour party cannot be trusted. It goes wider than that, throughout the community.
People in the media, in local government and in the Minister's own party are extremely disillusioned with the approach and style of the Government. The approach that



the Government have taken on this issue typifies that. It is not just the public spending cuts that the Government have made. It is not just their attitude to lone parent benefits: it is their attitude and the way in which they are going about reforming London government. People are disillusioned, and the Government should take that seriously.
The Minister told the House that he would listen. The House of Lords called the Minister's bluff. Unfortunately, the Minister has been found wanting. Gone is his promise to be open-minded. Gone is his promise to be consultative. The rhetoric has been proven to be very weak. I found his arguments weak. Labour Members were shame-faced at the tortuous logic he used to defend his arguments. He is having to defend the Prime Minister's beliefs. Those beliefs are not shared by the party, or by the public at large, but Ministers are having to toe the line and come up with some weak arguments to do so.
Tonight, the Minister's arguments relied on the fact that the Government's proposals on London government were in the manifesto. That was the only argument they seemed to put. But that shows how unserious they were all along about consultation. They have just taken the partisan line. Why have they wasted our time? Why did they offer to be open-minded? Why have they wasted so much money on the process? It throws into question the Government's commitment to consultation.
I thought that the Government were serious about consultation. I thought that they wanted a new style of government—new Labour, new style. I thought that they were doing that because they were trying to achieve a political aim. I thought that they wanted to show that they would be this inclusive, cuddly, democratic Government. But they are not. It is a charade. They have not changed their minds.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. We think that the millennium bug has come into effect. It got to midnight and the annunciator stopped working; it is now switched off.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): It has been reported, and it will be attended to. I thank the hon. Member for bringing it to the attention of the House.

Mr. Davey: I am glad to hear that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I would not want Members who were hanging around the bars not to know that I was on my feet. I know that they would rush in to listen to my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Members do not hang around the bars.

Mr. Davey: I am waiting for someone to rise on a point of order, but perhaps they will not.

Mr. Simon Hughes: A pint of order?

Mr. Davey: No, not that sort of order.
The Government's attempt to portray themselves as consultative and open-minded has backfired on them. Not only have they disappointed people who were

looking to them to be open-minded, but they have lost the good will of many people in the community. They have lost credibility when they consult.
Therefore, when the Government issue their next consultation paper on another subject—the reform of the House of Lords or some other reform—will it be worth anyone replying? People will know that the Government are not serious about consultation. No one will believe them or trust them in future episodes of consultation. That is a great shame. The Government have proved to us that they are not a listening Government.

Mr. Hughes: You are on again.

Mr. Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me that my name is now back in lights.
The case for a referendum is strong, because it is important that the new assembly for London has legitimacy and a mandate to operate based on the solid support of the people of London. That mandate will ensure its permanence. The system of government in London has changed up to four times this century, and we want the next change to be a permanent, not a short-term, feature. We do not want the ebbs and flows in the structure of London government to continue. A referendum that provided a mandate from the people would ensure that that new government structure for London was guaranteed stability.
12.15 am
The Government have lost an important opportunity by their failure to opt for a two-question referendum. The legitimacy offered by a referendum on one question is different from that offered by one on two questions. If the people voted yes in a one-question referendum, it would mean that they wanted a democratic voice for London, but it would not provide a mandate for that. A two-question referendum would enable all parties to be sure that Londoners wanted a particular democratic structure.
There is a dangerous implication behind the Government's actions. Although a future Government may recognise the mandate for a democratic voice in London, they may quite rightly say that the structure of democratic government in London had not been given the proper support of Londoners because they were never given a choice. The government of London could therefore be changed once again—subject to yet further ebbs and flows in its sorry history. If that happened, the Government would be culpable because of their failure to seize the opportunity to provide proper legitimacy for the structure of government in London once and for all. That arrangement should not be a political football.
The Minister said that the referendum should pose just one question, because that is the only way in which the people of London—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There should no other conversations in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.

Mr. Davey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
According to the Minister, it is important that people are certain about the likely structure of London government after the referendum, and that therefore just one question should be posed. Certainty about the outcome is an interesting concept of democracy. It is my understanding of democracy that the outcome should not be known before the question is put. The Government's suggestion seems to hark back to one-party states and the notion of choice in eastern Europe—one was either for or against the Communist party. That is not democratic or pluralist, and it reveals the danger behind the Government's simplistic approach to referendums.
The Government are setting a dangerous precedent by their reaction to the calls for consultation and their attempts to secure legitimacy for their views. Their behaviour will come to haunt them, because people had expected more of them.

Mr. Horam: When the Minister opened the debate just a few moments ago, but, in fact, yesterday, he said that he would be pragmatic. That choice of word rather surprised me, but he said that he would subject his pragmatism to three tests.
The first test was to decide whether a two-question referendum extended choice. He argued that it did not. That seemed to me an extraordinary argument. Two questions are greater than one question. Therefore, two questions extend choice. The Minister seemed to be arguing that one question was greater than two questions; the logic of his arithmetic escaped me.
I remember Douglas Jay, a Cabinet Minister in two previous Labour Governments, arguing that even socialism must obey the laws of arithmetic. In suggesting that one question provided more extensive choice than two, new Labour has even gone beyond Douglas Jay's remonstrations.
Secondly, the Minister suggested that the test must be a decisive test of public opinion. He asked, what would a loyal Liberal Democrat or a loyal Conservative want to do? That person might not end up with a choice that favoured his point of view. However, surely, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, we do not know what the results of democracy will be before we embark on the course. If the Liberal Democrats argue their case that there should be an assembly but no mayor, they may get a no, yes vote. If we argue our case for a mayor and no assembly, we may get a yes, no vote. If the Government argue their case and succeed, they may get a yes, yes vote. That would be a perfectly accurate, decisive test of public opinion.
The Government's conflation of the two questions causes concern because that formulation will not necessarily ensure a proper test of public opinion. For all we know, public opinion may be in favour of a mayor but not of an assembly. How is that point of view to express itself when there are not two separate questions? If there is only one question, and if, on balance, the public feel that we should have a mayor but are prepared to put up with an assembly, they will get both, even though they do not want an assembly.
It is extraordinary that the Government are arguing that a two-question approach is not a decisive test of public opinion. It is a decisive and clear test of public opinion.
Thirdly, the Minister argued that an approach on the question issue had to produce a workable proposition. Only the Government say that any proposition but their own is unworkable. How do we know what is a workable proposition? It has not yet been put into practice. As we know, events usually diverge widely from what theory would lead one to expect. I suggest that a mayor without an assembly is a perfectly practical proposition. An assembly without a mayor may be a perfectly practical proposition; we do not yet know. Therefore it is astonishingly arrogant of the Government to say that only their own proposition is workable.
The Minister said that, in proposing a two-question solution, not only were we not meeting the Government's three criteria—which we obviously are—but we were not honourable; we were playing politics. It is rich of the Minister to say so, because we all know how the Government got into this position.
Traditionally, the Labour party was trying to resurrect, in one form or another, the Greater London council. I remember the Minister—who, unfortunately, is now not in the Chamber—producing little maps, which showed the electoral area for a new assembly, with a slightly different physical shape from the area covered by the Greater London council. The area stretched along the Thames but, unfortunately, did not include Bromley, my borough. One felt that the Labour party intended to recreate the Greater London council, but not quite, to avoid the charge that it was recreating the GLC. That was the traditional policy of the Labour party for many years in opposition.
Suddenly, the idea of a mayor became fashionable and the two ideas—of a mayor and an assembly—were put together, because the Labour party could not make up its mind. There was a strong body of opinion for recreating the GLC and a strong body of opinion for creating the mayor, and the Labour party could not decide.
As the House knows, I have some experience of being a Labour Minister as well as a Conservative Minister. I often say to my hon. Friends that the most profound problem with Labour Governments is not necessarily that they take the wrong decisions—although they frequently do—but that they cannot take decisions at all.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Like what party to belong to.

Mr. Horam: Well, yes.
This is a perfect example. The Labour Government have been unable to resolve the problem of how to decide between two obvious alternatives, so they have stuck them both together and conflated them. Not only are the Government unable to decide: they are unwilling to allow the people of London to decide between the two alternative propositions—an astonishing situation. We are in this situation because the Government have failed to make up their mind. There will be a cost: it will be of the order of £20 million, which is the cost of the assembly. There is always a cost when Governments, of whatever political persuasion, fail to make clear-cut decisions. In this case, the Government will pass on their indecision to the people of London who will have to pay for it out of their own pockets.

Mr. Lansley: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of why the Government favour one question rather than two, will he recognise that the Government's argument hinges on the proposition that a significant number of people do not want a mayor without an assembly, and do not want an assembly without a mayor? The Government claim that the two things are interdependent. In fact, there is no evidence that a significant number of people hold the interdependence argument at the heart of their views. Most people have a view about the mayor and a view about the assembly, so it is natural to have two questions.

Mr. Horam: That is so. We must consider the matter rationally, as the newspapers do occasionally. It is interesting to examine their opinions on this issue. The Guardian, which the Government regard as a hostile newspaper, said:
The Government's package deal allows no room for those who want a Mayor but no Assembly … or those who want an Assembly but no Mayor … We subscribe to neither view. But to deny them any expression on the ballot seems peculiar. After all, the whole point of a referendum is to allow all the people their say".
The Times, which I imagine supports the Government these days, said:
In Scotland, Tony Blair insisted that two distinct issues were separated. He imposed that view on a reluctant Party. He should do so again … These are two separate issues. They require two separate questions and answers".

Sir Sydney Chapman: The Government promised to hold a referendum on the specific issue of whether there should be a Greater London assembly and an elected mayor. Given that the introduction of an elected mayor would be unique to our system of government in this country, does my hon. Friend agree that it beggars belief that the Government think that the people will accept one question rather than having the two issues separated in a two-question referendum? Does he agree also that it would be in the Government's interests, even at this late stage, to allow a two-question referendum? If they do not, they will lose more credibility and Londoners will turn against them.

Mr. Horam: I have followed the debate quite closely both inside and outside this place, but I do not know whether people have been asked whether there should be two questions. I do not know the people's views on that subject, and I do not know how they would vote. I suspect that the Government have not sought an opinion as to whether there should be two questions—they are simply imposing their view this evening, over and above the common sense displayed by the other place. That is a great shame.
After a while, I believe that people will begin to see that the Conservatives' proposal is cost-effective and extremely simple. During Disraeli's second term, his Cabinet comprised 10 people and there were only 16 members of the Government—one of whom was the Master of the Horse. Those 16 people-compared with the 90-odd Ministers we have at present—ran an empire of considerable size. I believe that that is a tribute to the simplicity of government: simple, cost-effective government is always best. This complicated, bureaucratic, many-layered government is sure to fail.

Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who has made a

second excellent speech during these deliberations. The Minister has been skating on thin ice. I am not much of an authority on thin ice, although I once read an essay by Paul Jennings in the first week of the new year in which he described what his diary publishers thought he needed to know. This year, they thought that he needed to know about ice. He reported that, as a consequence, he now knew that half an inch of ice was required to sustain a duck and an inch was required to sustain an infant; the measurement increased to 16 inches for a county class locomotive and 24 inches for a regiment of foot. When he reached the regiment of foot he wondered how they knew and assumed that it was a dull moment in the Crimea.
12.30 am
I do not know on top of the Government's majority how much ice is needed to sustain a Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but recalling some of their dimensions I hope that a safety factor has been built in. There is a further test of the quality of the ice in that the Minister skated over what the Americans would call "mayor'n assembly" as swiftly as he could. To be fair, at an earlier stage in the Bill's progress, he paid me the compliment of answering a question on this matter that I put to him in Committee. It is recorded in Hansard of 24 November at column 669. The Minister's speech over the next three columns did not answer my question, but when I asked it again at column 679 he started to answer it at column 680, wandered away elsewhere at column 681 and courteously and efficiently finished answering it at column 682.
When pulled together, the Minister's answer was—and I abbreviate—first, that the answer was in the Green Paper; secondly, that there was no simple second question; thirdly, that some of the permutations were unworkable; and finally that the Government were presenting a proposition for a considered judgment. There is no way in which the amendment could satisfy all those criteria, not least because the Opposition did not write the Green Paper.
It is reasonable for us to rebut the Government because while the Minister can tease us that our questions may not give us the answers that we wish, his question is equally incapable of allowing us the choice that we wish.
In the context of the noble Lord Dahrendorf, over whom we had a minor clash, we shall see tomorrow what the Minister said. I freely acknowledge that the noble Lord spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, but on Report he neither spoke nor voted in favour of the Government on the amendment. I had understood the Minister's references to be to that amendment. I hope that the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place, will agree to an interim score of 30 all.
This country's electorate is the most mature in the world and as a Londoner, I regard Londoners as not the least part of that electorate. I regret that electors with that degree of maturity are not to be trusted to find their way through two questions rather than one. I fear that I still harbour suspicions that the American abbreviation "mayor'n assembly" owes more to cobbling together a deal that the London Labour party can live with than to the dictates of good government.
I am delighted that so many papabile people, not the least of whom is the Minister for Transport in London, wish to be mayor. I am sorry that Londoners are not being


knocked down in a similar rush to be members of the assembly, but perhaps all those who do not manage to be mayor will get the assembly as a consolation prize. I am left with one essential question which was posed in a tiny intervention by the noble Lord Russell. It was worthy of his noble father but it was never answered by Baroness Hayman. He asked quietly why, if the manifesto decides the matter, we need a referendum at all.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to be called and I declare an interest as a council tax payer in this great city of ours. I do not rise to speak for that reason or even because both my parents and those of my wife decided to abandon London and its government to go to better climes. I am up at this late hour because of my concern that, as always, my constituents will end up paying for any mess in London.
I have been somewhat perplexed, in trying to come to grips with the amendment, about what exactly we are trying to decide and how anybody setting up a referendum could do that without having at least the White Paper. It is extremely strange that the Government, who can produce through the civil service as comprehensive a consultation document as the Green Paper in probably less than a month, and who three months ago finished the consultation, the results of which are available, cannot tell us what will be decided upon. Clearly, the Minister is right to challenge the Opposition to say what questions should be used and to ask for examples of better questions than those in the Bill. However, he is not allowing us to see what he has told us the people of London will see shortly. When talking about referendums, the Government always seem to ensure that the House does not know what the electorate are to vote on when it is trying to determine the questions.
We have seen the two alternatives on the amendment paper. In the short time left in the debate—I know that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is about to speak—we should put on record the commitment given in the Labour party manifesto. That is important. We have begun to see how precise the Government are in their choice of words. We are learning how to read what the words really say. I shall read a short paragraph from the manifesto, with its punctuation, because that is important. It says:
London is the only western capital without an elected city government. Following a referendum to confirm popular demand, there will be a new deal for London, with a strategic authority and a mayor, each directly elected. Both will speak up for the needs of the city and plan its future. They will not duplicate the work of the boroughs, but take responsibility for London-wide issues—economic regeneration, planning, policing, transport and environmental protection. London-wide responsibility for its own government is urgently required. We will make it happen.
It is interesting that the penultimate sentence contradicts the statement:
They will not duplicate the work of the boroughs".
Then, one begins to learn Labourspeak. Not duplicating the work of the boroughs does not mean that powers will not be taken away from the boroughs to the new assembly. I think that the Minister has agreed that that is the meaning of the words.
It is important that, during the debate that will take place in the country and in the City of London, we talk to people about the cost of an elected assembly versus just having a mayor who acts as a figurehead, a spokesman for London and somebody who brings together the boroughs.
I will be voting no to the one question that the Minister has invited us to accept, but I will be voting yes for the proposal to have a separately elected mayor. I believe that the Minister is doing his case no good. By having two questions he is splitting the Opposition. He will be getting yes votes on one half from the Liberal Democrats and yes votes on the other half from the Conservatives. He may get a bigger yes vote by having the two questions and be seen to be more democratic. At this late hour, I urge the Government to accept the Lords amendment.

Mr. Lansley: I want to add one or two points, one of which arises from the Minister's opening remarks. Having accepted that the referendum is to be pre-legislative and therefore advisory on the Government, it is unwise for Ministers to construe it not as advisory—leading to a choice of options by the Government in line with the preference of the London electorate—but as if it were a post-legislative referendum signifying the acceptance by the electorate of a Government proposal.
I have looked at the accountability of the London development agency to the assembly. Perhaps the Minister will tell us more about that. As I understand the Regional Development Agencies Bill, the Secretary of State appoints the members of the regional development agencies. There is no power in the Bill currently before the House to provide for anybody other than the Secretary of State to appoint the members, including those of the London development agency.
As has been said by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and in another place, we are being presented with Hobson's choice. We in Cambridge understand about Hobson because he was a carter in Cambridge. Hobson's conduit runs through my constituency. Hobson's choice is simple: a person can have any horse he likes as long as it is the one by the door. That is the Government all over: people can have any authority they like as long as it is the one that the Government propose. However, it may not be the one that London's electorate would prefer.

Mr. Ottaway: Some interesting speeches have been made. The Minister raised two important points. First, the date of the White Paper's publication seems to have become a little vague.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ottaway: I am pleased that the Minister is shaking his head, confirming that the date is still 23 March.

Mr. Raynsford: May I clarify the matter? We have always said that we intend to publish the White Paper in the week beginning 23 March.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation.
Secondly, the Minister argued that, if we have two questions, the result may be yes no, yes yes, no no or no yes; that, with two of those four results, the proposals


would not be workable; and that the various political parties would have to implement proposals with which they did not agree. That is a fair point and I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that that is his view. However, in Scotland, we had two questions and we could have had exactly the same result. The Government urged yes yes, but they may have got no yes, or yes no, in which case the position might have been unworkable and the Government would have been obliged to implement something with which they did not agree. Does that not make a mockery of the Minister's argument?
Another interesting revelation came out of the exchanges between the Minister and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes): the Liberal Democrats' Deputy Chief Whip in the House of Lords voted against his party and with the Government. If my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), my party's Deputy Chief Whip, voted with the Government tonight, I am not sure how much longer he would be the Deputy Chief Whip. That gives a new dimension to the Liberal Democrats' approach to politics: "On the one hand, this; on the other hand, that."

Mr. Simon Hughes: I say only for the record and to defend my colleague's interests that it was not a whipped vote.

Mr. Ottaway: There we are. The Liberal Democrats' approach is: "On the one hand, this; on the other hand, that—but we are not whipped."
Good sense and reasoned argument in another place have given the House a further and welcome opportunity to debate the details of the all-important referendum which will be staged on 7 May. The referendum is intended to reform the way in which our capital city is governed and to reinvigorate London for the 21st century. Above all, it is a referendum that should give Londoners the fullest opportunity to express their views on the details of the proposals for a Greater London authority. However, hon. Members on both sides of the House must realise that the Greater London authority comes in two distinct and separate parts: part one is a directly elected mayor; part two is a directly elected assembly. However, the Government still persist in ignoring the differences between the two and have just one question in the referendum.
The Government have already fiddled the question. "Which proposal should go first?" they asked their focus groups. "Are you more likely to support a mayor or an assembly?" they asked. The focus groups said that they did not like the idea of an elected assembly, so the spin doctors said, "We had better have a rethink and put the popular proposal of mayor first to soften the groups up." They added, "Let us forget about two questions because we will not get much support for both ideas together." I call that piggyback politics.
What is on the table for London's 5 million voters is one 24-word question:
Are you in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, that is it. There is nothing more. That is the end of story: a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly; a take-it-or-leave-it

question from a take-it-or-leave-it Government, whom the public thought were elected on a platform of greater democracy, not less. The Government's refusal to support a two-question referendum shows how wrong they were.
The Conservative party is prepared to embrace reform, but Conservative Members want the Government to move away from a half-hearted attitude to the referendum and embrace the opportunity that they have been given today, by giving Londoners a genuine choice about reforming their government. A two-question referendum on 7 May would give that choice. We fully realise and have repeated time and again our belief that the time is right to reform London's government. Lords amendment No. 1—which was tabled, although for totally different reasons, by both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party—calls for just that.
12.45 am
Conservative Members want two separate questions. The first would ask:
Do you want a directly elected mayor?
The second question would ask:
Do you want a directly elected assembly?
It would be two clear issues, two choices and two futures for Londoners to decide on. In our view, London deserves two questions.
After 18 years of Conservative government, Labour felt able, in its 1997 manifesto, to describe London as
one of the greatest cities on earth".
I am very grateful to Labour Members for so generously realising that achievement.
The Conservative party wants to build on those 18 years and to see London with a directly elected mayor and an indirectly elected assembly of borough leaders. We want to avoid the clash, conflict and anti-borough culture that would be a consequence of a directly elected assembly. Our proposals for an assembly of borough leaders would form a bridge between the man on the street and the mayor.
The mayor would be a voice for London and much more. Our assembly of borough leaders, rather than of elected assembly men, would ensure that power in local government remains firmly based at local level. Whereas the Government want change simply to create more politicians and bureaucrats, we believe in power at the lowest level.
Perhaps we should not be too surprised—because of the very big and public splits in the Labour party on reform—by Labour's failure to embrace democracy as much as we have. The Secretary of State for Wales once said that the trouble with pre-legislative referendums was that there were so many questions that could not be answered. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that he is
actually not a great exponent of government by referendum".
We must look to London to observe in detail the divisions in the Labour party. The London Labour party is split from top to bottom, which is a particularly damning indictment of Labour party policy. The minutes of November's London Labour party meeting record:
it was clear that the London Labour movement is still opposed to a directly elected mayor and wants a bigger and more powerful authority.
It appears that Londoners are a little dim.


They continue:
ask them two separate questions (do you want an elected assembly and do you want a directly elected mayor) and they come over all faint. According to our leaders, if we ask two questions, we are likely to end up with a mayor but no assembly".
So much for the London Labour party's views on the democratic process.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, the London Labour party, ever helpful, has come together to keep us up to date with its views. We now have the February 1998 bulletin from the London Labour party.

Mr. John Bercow: Racy stuff.

Mr. Ottaway: It sure is.
The minutes of the London Labour party state:
Trade unions, pensioners' groups, community and political organisations have come together to create a 'People's London' campaign working for a democratic Greater London Authority and against a directly elected mayor.
They continue:
The campaign will work in direct opposition to the Government's plans up to the publication of the White Paper early in March, after which there will be a decision taken on its stance towards the referendum: whether to call for a vote against, abstention, a write-in or some other response. The fight will continue whatever the response to the referendum, concentrating on campaigning for our vision of a people's London: democratic, inclusive, and properly funded.
The London Labour party was due to have a conference, in February, to discuss all those matters. The bulletin continues:
The annual conference, due to be held in February, has been postponed until after the referendum is safely out of the way. Regional Secretary Terry Ashton wrote to affiliates saying he had taken this decision because the original venue was too small.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Mr. Ottaway: Perhaps.
The bulletin continues:
However, when it was pointed out to him that he had no constitutional right to do this and that the new venue was actually available on the original date, he sent out new letters claiming that he had consulted with Party General Secretary Tom Sawyer, and that the reason was the need to concentrate on the forthcoming referendum and local elections. The truth is, of course, that there were resolutions from the Fire Brigade Union, MSF and others critical of the proposals.
Under the constitution, if 15 members of the Greater London Labour Party Executive call for a special meeting, then one must be held. However, Terry Ashton told one of those who did ask for such a meeting, that none would be held 'even if the whole committee asks for it'.
When such contempt is shown for its own members, what does this mean for how the Party feels about the wider labour movement and, indeed, the electorate?

There you haveit, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On Second Reading, the Minister for Transport in London said:
London needs the strategic leadership that can be provided only by a mayor who is directly elected by and speaks for the people, and who is capable of bringing all of London together."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 671.]
I could not agree more but, as the hon. Lady is a declared candidate to be mayor, it must be frustrating for her not to have the support of London's Labour party. She is in for an interesting time, with Trevor Phillips as the Mandelson-Blair candidate and herself as the Gordon Brown candidate. Let us face it—if she cannot sort out London Underground in nine months, she is not going to sort London out over the next few years.
The London Labour party has confirmed that Ministers fear the result of a full and more open two-question referendum, which is what we want for London in May. Ministers are ducking their responsibilities because they are afraid that Londoners will not want what the Government think would be good for them. We are back to Labour's nanny state mentality.
I urge the House to support the amendment.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) ended as he began—with misinformation about those who have declared an interest in standing for the post of mayor. He was, as always, as ill mannered as he is ill informed but, in a sense, that has been the keynote of tonight's so-called debate.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction said, these are wrecking amendments that have come to us from another place. The issues have been thoroughly debated in this House, and the House has rejected the amendments that have been returned to us.
I would not have thought it possible for Opposition Members to cover themselves in any more shame than they have managed to do tonight. Every single Opposition Member, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), has shown nothing but the most withering contempt for the people of London and, something that is perhaps even more shocking, contempt for this Chamber.
It has always been my—

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Ms Jackson: No, I shall not give way.
It has always been my understanding that this Chamber was the supreme decider on legislation in the House of Commons. Never—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Ms Jackson: No.
Never have so many forelocks been tugged with such regularity as they have been tonight by Opposition Members, bending the knee to those tired, dusty, flea-bitten—[Interruption.] Opposition Members would not recognise a dramatic pause if it rose and struck them in the face. They have consistently bent the knee to the other place, where the unelected and unaccountable have attempted to subvert the democratic will of this House and of the people of London.
The people of London made their response to Labour's London manifesto abundantly clear: they voted for it overwhelmingly. They have consistently responded positively to the idea that my party has offered them—the roseoration of a democratic voice which was taken away from them by the Conservative party. The Conservatives campaigned vigorously and vociferously before the general election against the Labour party's option being presented to the people of London—the option of restoring a democratic voice to London with a directly elected mayor and assembly. That is the issue, which Conservative Members have treated—as they invariably do—with the most withering contempt. The record will show that they have no respect for, interest in or concern about the democratic voice of the people of London and that they increasingly have no concern about, respect for or commitment to the primacy and supremacy of this Chamber as the decision-making voice in Parliament.
I have little doubt that the House will vote against this wrecking amendment, as it should. It is shameful that Opposition Members considered supporting it.

Hon. Members: More.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Members: More.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy Speaker is on his feet. There should not be so much noise. I am about to put the Question.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 181.

Division No. 167]
[1.9 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bayley, Hugh


Ainger, Nick
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Berry, Roger


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atkins, Charlotte
Blizzard, Bob


Austin, John
Borrow, David


Barnes, Harry
Bradshaw, Ben


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)






Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Buck, Ms Karen
Hill, Keith


Burden, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Burgon, Colin
Hoey, Kate


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hope, Phil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hopkins, Kelvin


Canavan, Dennis
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Caplin, Ivor
Hoyle, Lindsay


Casale, Roger
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Caton, Martin
Hurst, Alan


Cawsey, Ian
Hutton, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Chaytor, David
Illsley, Eric


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Jamieson, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Jenkins, Brian


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Clelland, David
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Clwyd, Ann
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Coaker, Vernon
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Coleman, Iain
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Colman, Tony
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cooper, Yvette
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corston, Ms Jean
Keeble, Ms Sally


Crausby, David
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kemp, Fraser


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Darvill, Keith
Khabra, Piara S


Davidson, Ian
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Dawson, Hilton
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dismore, Andrew
Laxton, Bob



Donohoe, Brian H
Lepper, David


Doran, Frank
Leslie, Christopher


Dowd, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Drew, David
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Drown, Ms Julia
Linton, Martin


Efford, Clive
Lock, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Love, Andrew


Ennis, Jeff
McAllion, John


Etherington, Bill
McAvoy, Thomas


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McCabe, Steve


Fisher, Mark
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Macdonald, Calum


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McFall, John


Flynn, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McIsaac, Shona


Galloway, George
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McNulty, Tony


Gardiner, Barry
McWilliam, John


Gerrard, Neil
Marek, Dr John


Godsiff, Roger
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Goggins, Paul
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martlew, Eric


Grogan, John
Meale, Alan


Hain, Peter
Michael, Alun


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Miller, Andrew


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hanson, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Healey, John
Moriey, Elliot


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hepburn, Stephen
Mudie, George


Heppell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hesford, Stephen
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)





Naysmith, Dr Doug
Spellar, John


Norris, Dan
Squire, Ms Rachel


O'Hara, Eddie
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Steinberg, Gerry


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stevenson, George


Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pike, Peter L
Stringer, Graham


Plaskitt, James
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pond, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pound, Stephen
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Timms, Stephen


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Prosser, Gwyn
Touhig, Don


Purchase, Ken
Trickett, Jon


Quin, Ms Joyce
Truswell, Paul


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rammell, Bill
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rapson, Syd
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Raynsford, Nick
Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rooney, Terry
Wareing, Robert N


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Watts, David


Roy, Frank
White, Brian


Ruane, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Salter, Martin
Wills, Michael


Savidge, Malcolm
Wilson, Brian


Sawford, Phil
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sheerman, Barry
Wood, Mike


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Woolas, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wray, James


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Southworth, Ms Helen





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Chope, Christopher


Allan, Richard
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Collins, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Cotter, Brian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cran, James


Baker, Norman
Curry, Rt Hon David


Baldry, Tony
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Beggs, Roy
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Duncan, Alan


Bercow, John
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Blunt, Crispin
Evans, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fallon, Michael


Brady, Graham
Fearn, Ronnie


Brand, Dr Peter
Flight, Howard


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Breed, Colin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fox, Dr Liam


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fraser, Christopher


Burnett, John
Gale, Roger


Burns, Simon
Garnier, Edward


Burstow, Paul
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Butterfill, John
Gibb, Nick


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gill, Christopher


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Cash, Wlliam
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


(Chipping Barnet)
Gorrie, Donald






Gray, James
Ottaway, Richard


Green, Damian
Page, Richard


Greenway, John
Paice, James


Grieve, Dominic
Paterson, Owen


Hague, Rt Hon William
Prior, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Randall, John


Hammond, Philip
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hancock, Mike
Rendel, David


Harris, Dr Evan
Robathan, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hawkins, Nick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hayes, John
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Heald, Oliver
Ruffley, David


Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
St Aubyn, Nick


Horam, John
Sanders, Adrian


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Shepherd, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jenkin, Bernard
Soames, Nicholas


Johnson Smith,
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spring, Richard


Keetch Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steen, Anthony


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Streeter, Gary


Key, Robert
Swayne, Desmond


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Syms, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lansley, Andrew
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Leigh, Edward
Townend, John


Letwin, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tyrie, Andrew


Lidington, David
Viggers, Peter


Livsey, Richard
Wallace, James



Loughton, Tim
Walter, Robert


Luff, Peter
Wardle, Charles


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


MacKay, Andrew
Webb, Steve


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wells, Bowen


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Madel, Sir David
Whittingdale, John


Major, Rt Hon John

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Malins, Humfrey
Wilkinson, John


Maples, John
Willetts, David


Mates, Michael
Willis, Phil


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


May, Mrs Theresa
Woodward, Shaun


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Yeo, Tim


Moore, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Moss, Malcolm



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Norman, Archie
Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Paul Tyler.


Öpik, Lembit

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Schedule

FORM OF BALLOT PAPER

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 6, leave out lines 3 to 7 and insert—
("The government propose the establishment of a greater London Authority made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor, both to be elected by Londoners.
Question 1: Are you in favour of an elected assembly?
Put a cross (X) in one box: YES NO
Question 2: Are you in favour of an elected mayor?
Put a cross (X) in one box: YES NO ")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Me. Raynsford.]

The House divided: Ayer 245, Noes 181.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3; that Mr. Graham Allen, Mr. Stephen Day, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Nick Raynsford be members of the Committee; that three be the Quorum of the Committee; that the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This issue arose in the last Parliament after we had considered Lords amendments. We said that, if there was to be a fair reflection of the views of the House, there should be fair representation on the Committee. In the last Parliament, the Committee did include representatives from the Opposition Benches. Is there any way in which,

even at this stage, all three parties represented in the debate could be represented on the Committee to ensure that the matter is not carved up again, as it has been in the past?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but it can be raised through the usual channels.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 25.

Division No. 168]
[1.23 am


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Allen, Graham
Fisher, Mark


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Atkins, Charlotte
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Austin, John
Gapes, Mike


Barnes, Harry
Gardiner, Barry


Barron, Kevin
Gerrard, Neil


Bayley, Hugh
Godsiff, Roger


Bennett, Andrew F
Goggins, Paul


Berry, Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin


Betts, Clive
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Blears, Ms Hazel
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Blizzard, Bob
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Borrow, David
Grogan, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Hain, Peter


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Buck, Ms Karen
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Burden, Richard
Hanson, David


Burgon, Colin
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Caborn, Richard
Healey, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hepburn, Stephen



Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heppell, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hesford, Stephen


Caplin, Ivor
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Casale, Roger
Hill, Keith


Caton, Martin
Hinchliffe, David


Cawsey, Ian
Home Robertson, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chaytor, David
Hope, Phil


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Dr Lynda
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hurst, Alan


Clelland, David
Hutton, John


Clwyd, Ann
Iddon, Dr Brian


Coaker, Vernon
Illsley, Eric


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Coleman, Iain
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Colman, Tony
Jamieson, David


Connarty, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Cooper, Yvette
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Corston, Ms Jean
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Crausby, David
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cummings, John
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dawson, Hilton
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dismore, Andrew
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kemp, Fraser


Doran, Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Drew, David
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Drown, Ms Julia
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Efford, Clive
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ennis, Jeff
Laxton, Bob


Etherington, Bill
Lepper, David






Leslie, Christopher
Roy, Frank


Levitt, Tom
Ruane, Chris


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Linton, Martin
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lock, David
Salter, Martin


Love, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


McAllion, John
Sawford, Phil


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McCabe, Steve
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McFall, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine


McGuire, Mrs Anne
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Snape, Peter


McNulty, Tony
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marek, Dr John
Spellar, John


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stevenson, George


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Martlew, Eric
Stringer, Graham



Michael, Alun
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sutclifre, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Timms, Stephen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Touhig, Don


Morley, Elliot
Trickett, Jon


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Truswell, Paul


Mudie, George
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Mullin, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Vaz, Keith


Norris, Dan
Vis, Dr Rudi


O'Hara, Eddie
Wareing, Robert N


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Watts, David


Palmer, Dr Nick
White, Brian


Pickthall, Colin
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pike, Peter L
Wicks, Malcolm


Plaskitt, James
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pond, Chris
Wills, Michael


Pope, Greg
Wilson, Brian


Pound, Stephen
Wnterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wood, Mike


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Woolas, Phil


Prosser, Gwyn
Worthington, Tony


Purchase, Ken
Wray, James


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Quinn, Lawrie
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Rammell, Bill
Wyatt, Derek


Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Rooney, Terry





NOES


Allan, Richard
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Moore, Michael


Baker, Norman
Öpik, Lembit


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Rendel, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Brand, Dr Peter
Sanders, Adrian


Burstow Paul
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Wallace, James


Cotter, Brian
Webb, Steve


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Willis, Phil


Harris, Dr Evan



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Don Foster.


Keetch, Paul

Question accordingly agreed to.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — Heysham M6 Link Road

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Miss Geraldine Smith: I welcome the opportunity to outline briefly to the House the case for the completion of the road link between the port of Heysham and the M6.
In recent years, Heysham port has been a story of continuing expansion, investment and success. Its ever increasing importance as a port, particularly in relation to trade with Ireland and the Isle of Man, is clearly demonstrated by the spectacular growth in the tonnage that it handles. In 1983, about 1,000 ships carried just over 500,000 tonnes of freight. By 1993, some 2,700 ships had more than quadrupled that tonnage to 2.2 million tonnes. In 1997, 3,500 ships increased the freight handled to in excess of 3 million tonnes. According to the 1995 figures, Heysham handles the second largest amount of roll on/roll off traffic from any single port on the Irish sea, just 2 per cent. less than the port of Liverpool and significantly more than any other west coast port.
The opening of the third roll on/roll off linkspan berth in August will undoubtedly lead to further growth in the port's market share of traffic. There are 11 scheduled services per day to Belfast, Dublin, Warrenpoint, and Douglas on the Isle of Man. The new berth will allow that number to increase to 13 per day. The port also accommodates a substantial private shipping operation, North Lancashire Stevedores, which has its own warehousing, wharfage and cranage.
On the north quay, British Gas has located its service base for the Morecambe bay gasfield, which is one of largest on the United Kingdom continental shelf. Another significant contributor to the port's success is the passenger and freight service to the Isle of Man, operated by the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company.
Heysham port has a natural advantage over its west coast competitors because it can operate around the clock throughout the year without regard to tidal conditions. It is expertly managed; has a dedicated work force; and has the physical capacity for much further expansion. I am convinced that the hard-earned growth and success of that port will continue, and that will be most welcome in an area of high unemployment.
I know that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), is already aware of much of what I have outlined because she opened the new linkspan berth on an extremely wet and windy day in August. I can assure her that her visit and interest were most appreciated by all those involved with the port.
Heysham port is a success story, but its phenomenal growth has put enormous pressure on the local road systems between the port and the M6. It is estimated that in excess of 1,000 heavy goods vehicles per day start their journeys from Heysham port, swelling the congestion on the overloaded A683. The daily traffic flows on that single-carriageway road from Morecambe to Lancaster are in excess of 36,000, almost high enough to warrant motorway status in its own right.
The east-west traffic on the road meets up with north-southbound traffic on the Lune bridges at Lancaster. The traffic flows over those bridges are in excess of 56,000 vehicles per day, which is almost as high as that on the six-carriageway M6 north of Lancaster.
Heysham port is sited a mere nine miles to the west of the M6 junction, south of Lancaster, yet it frequently takes an hour to complete that short journey. Such unacceptable delays need to be addressed urgently.
In addition to the high costs caused by such delays, and the anger and frustration felt by the commercial and private motorist alike, numerous other problems are caused by the traffic congestion in the area. One is the ever increasing problem of air pollution from exhaust emissions. The daily deluge of poison released from the crawling traffic blights the lives and health of residents along the route and adversely impacts on the environment of the historic city of Lancaster.
There is growing evidence that the appalling traffic congestion is hampering the commercial development—especially the tourism industry, on which the area relies heavily—of both Morecambe and Heysham. Potential visitors to the resorts are deterred by the congestion.
The police, fire and ambulance emergency services are frequently snarled up in the traffic and, as a result, lives and properties are placed at risk. In the event of a serious incident at Heysham nuclear power station, speedy evacuation of the area would be impossible to achieve. The potential casualties that could arise from such an incident are almost too horrific to contemplate.
Another major area of concern is that, due to traffic congestion, bus operators are unable to maintain regular and reliable local services. That has led to a decline in the number of passengers using the services, which has led to increased costs to the operators, leading to increased bus fares, leading to further decreases in passenger numbers and increased use of private cars, which once again adds to the congestion; so the vicious circle continues.
It is clear that a modern integrated transport system will need to ensure that maximum use is made of public transport in our towns and cities. It is equally clear that that will not happen unless public transport offers regular, reliable, comfortable, safe and affordable services. In the Morecambe, Heysham and Lancaster areas, such services will not be available unless the traffic congestion problem is solved. In my opinion, the key to that solution is the completion of the Heysham port M6 motorway link.
The link, which will provide an additional crossing over the River Lune and bypass the city of Lancaster, will cater for the high percentage of through traffic generated from, and leading to, the large industrial conurbations to the south. I am convinced that the provision of the link would bring immediate and sustained relief to many thousands of beleaguered commercial and private road users and, undoubtedly, would be of significant economic and environmental benefit to the area.
Establishing an extra crossing over the River Lune and a motorway link is by no means a new concept. The need for them was recognised many years ago and, accordingly, they were embodied in the Lancaster district local plan. The first stage of the link was opened in 1994 but, because of environmental concerns regarding the original route,

the completion of the link was put on ice. Several alternative routes have since been examined, and the decision on the preferred option is imminent.
Extensive local consultations have taken place, and two significant facts have emerged. First, the overwhelming majority of individuals, business and interest groups that participated in the consultative exercise support the completion of the link. Secondly, of those who support the motorway link, the vast majority are in favour of it being made to the south of the city of Lancaster.
Although I fully appreciate the difficult position that the Government inherited from the previous Administration—the Tory party, which often quotes the laws of supply and demand, singularly failed to supply the integrated transport network that the country has been demanding for years—I feel that the problems in the Morecambe, Heysham and Lancaster area are so acute that they warrant priority treatment. In view of that, and of the years of delay, I invite the Minister to give me an assurance that the case for the completion of the Heysham port motorway link will be considered as a matter of urgency, and that the decision can be taken at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I want to support my hon. Friend, and neighbour, the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith), and to congratulate her on her tenacity in securing the debate and on her energy in keeping going at this late hour.
The best route for the final leg of the Heysham M6 link would take the road through my constituency of Lancaster and Wyre. This is a road of vital strategic importance. It would boost the regeneration of rundown industrial areas in my constituency and raise the profile of Glasson dock as well as Heysham port. Most significantly for the historic and congested city of Lancaster, it could form a vital part of an integrated transport system, which could radically reduce traffic to the great benefit of my constituents.
A new road link to the M6 at junction 33 could provide an exceptional opportunity for park and ride, a base for a new station and a transport interchange featuring car hire, taxis, cycling and light delivery vehicles. Road pricing on the A6 south of Lancaster, coupled with a bypass, would return Galgate village to its inhabitants. It would create road space, increase safety and reduce noise and pollution.
Coupled with our history, the quality of our built environment, our natural advantages and other assets far too numerous to mention in this short space of time, the investment—which we in Lancaster and Morecambe have missed out on for decades—and the vision of radical traffic reduction could make Lancaster simply the best city in which to live, do business and visit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I wonder whether it is appropriate to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) on obtaining this debate, given the lateness—or rather the earliness—of the hour. However, I congratulate her on setting out so cogently. clearly, strongly and in such detail the interests of her constituents and the particular problems that they face.
I recognise those problems, as highlighted by my hon. Friend, and the ones faced by the city of Lancaster. Our hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) added his voice to the debate and underlined the problems that are being experienced in his part of the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to visit Lancaster and Heysham, when I witnessed some of the problems at first hand. Regrettably, traffic congestion blights many of our town centres. As part of the forthcoming integrated transport White Paper, we are considering ways of tackling congestion. I also appreciate the desire to provide better access to the port of Heysham.
Clearly, we will wish to look at how to address those needs in the context of our integrated transport policy. Before I turn to the situation around Lancaster, it may be helpful if I set out the reasons why we need to develop such a policy. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are looking afresh at why and how we travel and move goods. We are also looking at the role each mode can and should play in meeting the demand for travel, and are seeking to develop a consensus on how national transport requirements should be met in the medium and long term in a way that contributes to greater integration, improved accessibility and safety, sustainable economic growth and the achievement of the Government's goals for a better environment. Above all, an integrated transport system must be sustainable.
One encouraging aspect of what is, in reality, an ambitious task is the degree of consensus in favour of change. We cannot achieve that change in isolation, and we are keen actively to engage those involved in transport. It is a feature of the policy development work now under way that we are involving a wide range of external advice and expertise, including local authorities, businesses, trade unions, transport professionals and transport users.
The roads review is examining the role that roads should play in an integrated and sustainable transport policy. Against the background of increased congestion and a need to reduce pollution levels, we have three broad options for roads: first, to make better use of existing infrastructure; secondly, to manage demand; and, thirdly, to provide new infrastructure, but only as a last resort.
To make the best use of existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It has been provided at substantial cost in both financial and environmental terms, and we must make the best use of that investment. Technologies old and new can help to make better use of our roads network. A number of measures can also bring safety benefits, and we will need to ensure that those are given proper priority. However, we must be realistic about what the various options can deliver.
We must also consider seriously more difficult options, such as managing demand and providing new infrastructure. Managing demand is a vast topic. It encompasses reducing the need to travel by, for example, land use planning, an assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes is encouraged and, inevitably, controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms. Many local authorities, including Lancaster, are seeking through integrated transport packages to combine demand management and other measures so that mobility is maintained while its adverse consequences are reduced.
Providing new infrastructure is a difficult option, both financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we will not proceed with major new road or rail construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative. Even then, there will be difficult choices to be made within the limited resources that are available. That is the background against which future investment decisions will be taken. We make no apologies for setting it out at length, because it is a message which needs to be heard.
Perhaps I could now move to the specific issues that were raised by my hon. Friend. As she said, I visited her constituency on 21 August to open officially the port of Heysham's new £2 million linkspan—a road bridge which allows freight to load on and off the ferries. During my visit, I saw some of the work that is already being done to tackle Lancaster's traffic problems, and I discussed with councillors their proposals for improving access to Morecambe and Heysham. I congratulate the city on what has already been achieved in reducing congestion.
The opening of phase 1 of the Heysham to M6 link in July 1994 removed a significant volume of traffic from the built-up areas of Morecambe and Heysham, including a large number of heavy goods vehicles travelling between the port of Heysham and the M6. Completing the link could further improve access and reduce congestion. As my hon. Friend knows, Lancashire county council is still considering which route its proposed link road should take, following consultation last year.
The proposed road has some history. Following public examination of the Lancashire structure plan, the independent inspector's report recommended that the Lancaster western bypass should be deleted, as the traffic benefits were unlikely to outweigh the combined effects of the visual impact on the landscape and the estuary and the potential harm to conservation interests. Lancashire county council accepted that recommendation, and recently consulted the public on three different routes to complete the road link from the M6 to Heysham. I understand that the consultation showed considerable support for completing the link. My hon. Friend spoke about that.
Three routes are now being considered. They are the so-called orange route, a northerly bypass of Lancaster; the green route, a western bypass of Lancaster and Galgate; and the blue route, a shorter route to the west of Lancaster which involves the construction of new junctions on the M6 south of Lancaster.
When Lancashire county council has decided which of those routes to pursue, it will be able to apply for funds from the Department in the usual way as part of the annual local transport settlement. When it does, we will assess the merits of the scheme in line with the approach that I set out earlier. As my hon. Friends will appreciate, I cannot at this stage tell whether funding will be available. I know that the council is seized of the need to look at other alternatives. Clearly, improving access to the port of Heysham for freight traffic is important if the port is to develop and grow. A better road link could undoubtedly help, as could enhanced use of the rail network.
If we are to achieve our transport objectives, it is important that more freight should travel by rail where that represents a viable alternative to road transport. To help to achieve that, we are working to establish more


effective and accountable regulation and to establish a new rail authority to provide a clear, coherent and strategic programme for the development of the railways so that the aspirations of rail freight operators and users can be met. We have already taken account of that to boost the take-up of freight grants, and that is proving

successful. We have also secured commitments from the French Government and Eurotunnel designed to get a better deal for rail freight through the channel tunnel and beyond.
I assure my hon. Friend that the issues that she has raised will be closely examined.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Two o'clock.